Sex Crimes

Congressman Proposes "Camera Phone Predator Alert Act"

Congressman Peter King (R-NY) has introduced a new law entitled the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act (H.R. 414). The proposed law would "require mobile phones containing digital cameras to make a sound when a photograph is taken." The Act makes the finding that "children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone." You can find the text of the legislation here. Ars Technica has more. From the Act:

(a) Requirement- Beginning 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, any mobile phone containing a digital camera that is manufactured for sale in the United States shall sound a tone or other sound audible within a reasonable radius of the phone whenever a photograph is taken with the camera in such phone. A mobile phone manufactured after such date shall not be equipped with a means of disabling or silencing such tone or sound.

(b) Enforcement by Consumer Product Safety Commission- The requirement in subsection (a) shall be treated as a consumer product safety standard promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission under section 7 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056). A violation of subsection (a) shall be enforced by the Commission under section 19 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2068).

Sex Offender Exposes Teen To AIDS

A sex offender with AIDS is facing charges of exposing a teenager to the disease.  The man allegedly had AIDS medication in his possession when he was arrested. From WPIX:

Nassau County police arrested a registered sex offender with AIDS, after he was found in a car with a 16-year-old boy during a routine traffic stop last Sunday.

Robert Musmacker, 36, a newspaper delivery man from Oceanside is being held on $1 million bond after pleading not guilty to third-degree criminal sexual act, reckless endangerment, endangering the welfare of a child, among other charges in Suffolk County Court Thursday.

District Attorney Thomas Spota said investigators believe the boy may have been one of several victims with whom Musmacker engaged in illegal sexual activities.

"If we have other individuals that have had contact there will be more testimony before the grand jury," Spota said.

Prosecutors say Musmaker was convicted in 1992 on charges that he sexually abused a 6-year-old female relative. He was reportedly sentenced to 3 to 9 years in prison for the crime and was paroled in 2001.

According to authorities, the 36-year-old had AIDS medication in his possession at the time of his arrest. He later told police he was infected with the disease.

New York Lets Sex Offender Keep Law License

The New York Appellate Division, First Department has released a divided opinion allowing an admitted sex offender to keep his New York law license. The dissent argued that that man should have been disbarred. You may view the opinion here. From Law.com:

An associate who was fired from Kirkland & Ellis in 2004 after admitting he attempted to arrange a meeting "to engage in an oral sexual act" with someone he thought was a 13-year-old girl has been suspended from practicing law in New York for three years.

In a rare 3-2 decision in a disciplinary matter, a five-judge panel of the New York Appellate Division, 1st Department, agreed that Steven J. Lever "brought shame to himself and to this State's Bar" by using the Internet "to prey on minors for purposes of sexual gratification." They also agreed his conduct required "a significant sanction."

However, finding a dearth of New York precedent on point, the judges could not agree on the appropriate punishment.

Spitzer Escapes Federal Prosecution

The U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York has announced that Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer will not be charged in connection with the prostitution scandal that resulted in his resignation. From CNN:

"After a thorough investigation, this office has uncovered no evidence of misuse of public or campaign funds," U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia said in a statement.

The attorney's office also said it found no illicit activity related to Spitzer's withdrawal of funds for, and his payments to, the Emperors Club VIP, which authorities have said was a prostitution ring.

"In light of the policy of the Department of Justice with respect to prostitution offenses and the longstanding practice of this office, as well as Mr. Spitzer's acceptance of responsibility for his conduct, we have concluded that the public interest would not be further advanced by filing criminal charges in this matter," Garcia said.

Spitzer resigned in March after it was revealed that he was among the Emperors Club's patrons -- "Client 9," according to court papers detailing the service's workings. Court documents detailed arrangements for a nearly two-and-a-half hour rendezvous between Client 9 and a high-class prostitute -- identified as "Kristen" -- at the Mayflower hotel in Washington in February.

Spitzer was linked to the Emperors Club when when IRS and FBI officials noticed suspicious transfers of larger sums of money between several of the governor's personal accounts, sources told CNN.

Those sources say red flags were raised when the money ended up in the bank accounts of shell companies linked to the Emperors Club.

Halloween Sex Offender Restrictions Roundup

As Halloween approaches, law enforcement officials are advising parents to check state sex offender registries before letting their children go Trick-or-Treating.  Sex offenders in Missouri are challenging the further restrictions related to Halloween activities. Maryland sex offenders have received letters from the state's Probation and Parole Division telling them to stay inside on Halloween from 6 P.M. until the next morning, as well as putting 'No Candy' signs on their doors. Officials in Idaho, Kentucky, New York, and Texas have begun taking similar precautions.  The Washington Post has more.  From the Associated Press:

[Texan authorities] have arrested 24 sex-offense suspects during a two-day sweep, part of a national crackdown on sex offenders before Halloween.

The majority of arrests this week were of sex offenders who violated their registration requirements. The Lone Star Fugitive Task Force planned the roundup specifically for Halloween, officials said.

"There's a lot of kids that are going to be on the streets pretty soon," said Tom Smith, the supervisory deputy U.S. marshal, who headed the sweep.

Such sweeps are part of a nationwide law enforcement trend targeting sex-offense suspects or registered sex offenders on or before Halloween and more severely restricting their activities that night.

In Missouri, four sex offenders are suing over a new state law that requires them to avoid all Halloween-related contact with children, remain inside their homes and post a sign saying they have no candy to keep trick-or-treaters away. The ACLU of Eastern Missouri filed suit on the offenders' behalf in federal court Wednesday, arguing the provisions are too vague to enforce.

Maryland has an almost identical law and last week sent 1,200 violent and child sex-offenders a paper sign in the mail that read "No candy at this residence," which they must post on their front doors or possibly face a parole violation.

South Carolina has a 5 p.m. Halloween curfew for sex offenders on probation or parole. They cannot give out candy or have their outdoor lights on.

In New York, the Division of Parole requires registered sex offenders to stay home or in designated locations and makes spot checks to enforce the rule. Sex offenders also can't answer the door to trick-or-treaters, have Halloween candy in their possession or dress in costume.

Texas requires registered sex offenders to turn off their porch lights and prohibits them to have any exterior decorations between 5 p.m. and 5 a.m., with parole, probation and police officers checking to see if they comply.

Those opposed to the crackdowns say they unnecessarily scapegoat sex offenders who already are complying with the conditions of their parole.

Also, check out these two great posts by Grits for Breakfast about Halloween-time crackdowns.

Victims as Defendants

A few weeks ago, we mentioned a new bill signed into law by New York Gov. David Paterson which shields sexually exploited children from being charged with prostitution. A Stitch in Haste ties together the law with a different case we discussed the other day:

It’s a long-standing principle in the law that “predatory” crimes should not be applied to those whom the law is meant to protect. So, for example, minors usually (though not always) cannot be prosecuted for statutory rape. Due process demands (or ought demand) that someone cannot simultaneously be the perpetrator and the victim of the same crime.

[The new law] [m]akes perfect sense to me. I find it depressing (but not surprising) that the move was ever considered controversial and that it had so much trouble getting through New York’s dysfunctional state legislature.

I have three other hasty stitches:

1. Wouldn’t it be nice to see, as a stepping stone toward decriminalization, drug offenses treated the same way? Why should drug users (i.e., the victims) ever be prosecuted for buying drugs? Aren’t they “incompetent” (i.e., as addicts) much the same way that minors are deemed incompetent? Why not make the same offer: Get treatment, disclose your source, and face no criminal penalty?

2. Teens who engage in prostitution, especially those in New York City, overwhelmingly do so because they are runaways with no other means of survival. And a disproportionate fraction of those runaways are gays, either disowned by their families or fleeing hostile communities (e.g., this source claims 42% of New York’s homeless youth identify as gay or lesbian; this source says “more than 20%”). Any policy discussion regarding the plight of teen runaways should incorporate the causal impact of anti-gay bigotry on the problem. (See also my previous posts on the role of anti-gay bigotry on teen suicide and suicide-ideation rates.)

3. What does it say about contemporary criminal justice that I had to use the term “predatory” crimes in my opening sentence (i.e., as opposed to “victimless” crimes)? Should conduct that is not “predatory” ever be a crime in the first place?

New York Protects Exploited Children From Prostitution Charges

CrimProf Blog has a post discussing a New York Times article detailing a New York law which will end the practice of charging underage prostitutes.  From The New York Times:

Ending years of debate and delay, Gov. David A. Paterson on Friday signed into law a bill shielding sexually exploited girls and boys from being charged with prostitution.

The law, known as the Safe Harbor for Exploited Youth Act, will divert children under the age of 18 who have been arrested for prostitution into counseling and treatment programs, provided they agree to aid in the prosecution of their pimps.

It has been the subject of intense debate in the State Legislature and beyond, and was opposed by some law enforcement officials and by the Bloomberg administration, which argued that the bill would make it harder to crack down on prostitution.

But the bill’s backers said it was wrong to treat under-age prostitutes — many forced into the sex trade and kept there with physical threats and abuse — as criminals rather than victims.

The legislation passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly several times in recent years but died in the Republican-controlled State Senate, most recently because of disagreement over language addressing whether judges would have any discretion over diverting criminal charges.

But supporters agreed to add provisions this year that allow charges to be reinstated if the arrested child refuses counseling or declines to cooperate with court mandates, like testifying against sex traffickers. The new law will also prevent anyone who has already been through the program from avoiding prosecution for later prostitution offenses.

Around the Web

A New York Times blog is reporting that Gary Glitter, the British pop star who was convicted of sexually abusing two pre-pubescent girls in Vietnam, has "been hounded by the media, blackballed by immigration authorities, and ... told that he might be better off returning to Britain."  It has since been reported that Gary Glitter, real name Paul Gadd, is fighting an order that will require him to register as a sex offender in Great Britian.

The Seattle Times is reporting that "a new state law is making it easier for prosecutors to bring accused sexual offenders ... to trial."   The law, which went into effect in June, makes it much easier for alleged prior victims of a defendant to testify as witnesses in a current sexual-offense case.  The article discusses the first case to use the new law where prosecutors are using testimony from some of the more than a half-dozen relatives who say a man had sexually abused them in the past 40 years.

Eugene Volokh had a post about a California law that protected children against "virtually nothing." Even reading the text of the statute makes it ambiguous as to what conduct that the legislature was really targeting.

Sentencing Law and Policy has an article about a high school senior who sent a 17-year-old buddy a cell phone video of the senior fooling around with his teenage girlfriend.  The 18-year old senior has been charged with a sex crime, telephone dissemination of obscene material to a minor.  According to the article, the teen pled guilty to a lesser offense, but the implications of the original charge have "prompted some questions about the state's sex offender laws and may serve as a warning to teens." The Des Moines Register has more.

A new study from the University of California, Davis has found that while "[a]dults are easily fooled when a child denies that an actual event took place, [adults are] somewhat better at detecting when a child makes up information about something that never happened."  The article from ScienceDaily notes that this research has "important implications for forensic child sexual abuse evaluations."  According to the study's author and UC Davis professor Gail S. Goodman, "[t]he seriousness of abuse charges and the frequency with which children's testimony provides central prosecutorial evidence makes children's eyewitness memory abilities important considerations. Arguably even more important, however, are adults' abilities to evaluate children's reports."

A man, convicted of human trafficking, will get a new trial because of ex post facto issues.  The man was convicted in the Eastern District of New York of sex trafficking and forced labor under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act for forcing a woman into beatings, sex acts and working on his bondage web site.  The acts allegedly occurred between January 1999 and October 2001, however the law was not enacted until October 2000, and prosecutors presented evidence at trial of conduct for the entire period charged in the indictment. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case for a new trial in a per curiam opinion.  The opinion may viewed here.

New York Times Editorial about Registration Laws

Somewhat out of the blue (although ostensibly related to a recent court decision in New Jersey), the New York Times published an editorial arguing for reform to Megan's Laws.  From the unsigned editorial:

One danger has always been vigilantism. Child molesters living peaceably in a community after serving their time — and even some people mistaken for child molesters — have been beaten up or fired upon.

A disturbing new development is the proliferation of local ordinances that go beyond the reporting requirements of legislation like Megan’s Law by restricting where sex offenders may live. In some New Jersey towns, offenders cannot live within 2,500 feet of a school or playground. Often, the banned areas are so large as to effectively prohibit a sex offender from living anywhere in town.

These bans can do more harm than good. They will not deter a determined predator. Many law enforcement officials, including parole officers, have observed that they tend to bunch sex offenders in drug-infested, rundown neighborhoods that are poorly suited for anyone trying to turn around a life.

It's interesting to see such an editorial against registration laws as currently designed and residency restrictions.

HT: SexOffenderResearch.

Around the Web

Sentencing Law and Policy points out an article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution discussing the broad reach of sex offender residency restrictions.  The article tells the story of a woman who, at age 17, oral sex with a 15-year-old male classmate.  The woman is now subject to Georgia's strict residency restrictions that say an offender cannot live within 1,000 feet of places where children congregate. It's yet another case illustrating that all "sex offenders" are not equal.

A former middle school coach in California, who was convicted of sexual conduct with underage girls, is "arguing for a review of his case, saying he was not advised that he could face almost 200 years in prison before becoming eligible for a parole hearing."  The man, now 26, had sexual encounters with several teenage girls when he was 18 to 20 years old. He was sentenced to two consecutive 15-years-to-life terms and two dozen concurrent life terms.

The Washington Post has an article discussing a new bill in New York that would divert young girls arrested for prostitution to social programs rather than punishing them. While the age of consent in New York is 17, there is no minimum age for charges of prostitution. Some suggest that social services are the best way to treat these youths while others argue treatment programs should only be completed if they are part of the legal process.

Crime and Consequences reports that (according to this New York Times article), "85 Republican members of the House of Representatives have requested that the Supreme Court reconsider its decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana to ban the death penalty for child rape." The request was prompted by the revelation that the military permits the death penalty for child rape, which is contrary to the majority's statement that no federal jurisdiction permits it.

Vermont Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie recently called on state lawmakers "to convene in a special session next month to pass new laws cracking down on sex offenders, proposing a 25-year mandatory minimum prison term and other measures."  Not everyone agreed with Lt. Gov. Dubie's proposals however.   “Long mandatory sentences make us feel really good, but they really do very little to keep people safe from sex offenders,” said Karen Tronsgard-Scott, director of the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.