New York State Senate: Protecting Children Since Never

The New York State Senate passed a package of eight bills last week, claiming they "prevent sexual abuse". The bills are now in the House, awaiting votes. If passed, they will have a significant impact on our lives. One of the bills proposes making Level 2 sex offenders subject to the same community notification requirements as Level 3s. This means that, just after celebrating the one-year anniversary of purchasing our first home in an attempt to gain some desperately needed stability, the local police would go around door to door handing out flyers. On them would be a picture of my fiancee, our home address and vehicle information, and a description of his charge. The police would "alert" all of our neighbors to be aware of him and then walk away. And the Senate pats themselves on the back as God knows what kind of community hysteria ensues, and our already constant fear is elevated to levels previously unknown.

 Of course, our lives are certainly not the only ones that stand to be altered. Nearly hundreds of thousands of families in New York State will be suffering the consequences as well. After all, the Level 2 notification is just one of the eight bills. Below, see my summary of the problems with each bill in the package:

1.       Bill S.356 “would designate anyone convicted of committing or attempting to commit sex offenses against children aged ten years or less a Level 3 offender”

Problem: This means that juvenile offenders who commit crimes against other children will be automatically designated as Level 3. I would be embarrassed to be a resident of any state that subjects children to the lifelong humiliation of being publicly registered. Furthermore, research and experts have testified that juvenile offenders have extremely low recidivism rates.¹ Ironically, we consider children to be victims, incapable of understanding or consenting to sexual activity – but when they are the perpetrators, somehow that becomes false?

2.       Bill S.487 “would help address the high recidivism rates among convicted sex offenders”

Problem: This statement is FALSE, FALSE, FALSE. Recidivism rates for convicted sex offenders are the LOWEST of all crimes except murder, and this has been consistently documented since long before the public registry existed. A 2012 study from CT found a 2.7% re-offense rates.² A 2007 study from New York found that just 3.5% of registrants commit new sex crimes³.

3.       Bill S.597A “prohibits sex offenders from obtaining licenses and certification to become real estate appraisers… the bill would prevent a scenario where convicted offenders would be in a position to be alone in an empty house or building with someone vulnerable to attack.”

Problem: Again, this statement is based on the myth that sex offenders have high re-offense rates. 95% of sex crimes committed by people who have no prior conviction for one, and therefore aren’t on the registry⁴. Therefore, this bill ignores the high majority of sex crime victims. Furthermore, restricting a registrant’s ability to find gainful employment contributes to significant instability. Without an income, and unable to afford housing, the chances of re-offense increase.⁵ If the registrant has a family to support, this negatively impacts all of them as well as costs taxpayers if the family is forced to use public assistance. 

4.       Bill S.1544 “makes it a class D felony, punishable by up to 7 years in prison, for sex offenders who fail to register according to SORA”

Problem: There are nearly 35,000 registrants in New York state alone and the smaller municipalities that are in charge of registering local registrants are severely over-burdened.  When my fiancée went to have his 3-year picture taken, he provided the appropriate party with our new address. They refused to take it and said he needed to leave, call back and make a separate appointment for this. When he followed their instructions, each time he called they were “too busy” to set up an appointment. It then became his fault when they were unavailable within the 10-day timeframe, and he was charged with felony failure to register. We spent $3,000 in legal fees to avoid prison. Had he been forced to go to jail for this, I would have lost our house, all our possessions and any ability to survive. It would not have helped his victim or kept anyone safe. It would have destroyed our lives. It is not acceptable to send someone to jail based on someone else’s inability to perform their job.

5.       Bill S.1542 “makes it a felony for certain sex offenders who fail to register or report a change of address”

Problem: Again, this does not take into account how over-burdened local municipalities are. The number of registrants has exploded since SORA, and this puts even more pressure on over-worked public employees. Furthermore, as illustrated above, it creates criminals by making it very difficult to avoid felony FTR charges…and subsequently, more inmates for whom taxpayers have to pay to incarcerate.

 

6.       Bill S.512A “makes the same identifying information pertaining to Level 2 sex offenders that is available to the general public through the state’s sex offender registry website available to law enforcement for dissemination/community notification purposes”

Problem: The low re-offense rates for sex offenders combined with prevalence of crimes committed by first-time offenders make community notification a poor attempt at preventing sex crimes. A NY-based study by Dr. Jeffrey Sandler found that the registry and notification has had no impact on sex crime rates whatsoever.⁶ Disseminating personal information to the public puts the children and family members of registrants in direct danger, and makes them easy targets for vigilantes⁷.

7.       Bill S.1522 “requires sex offenders to disclose whether their residence is within ½ mile to an elementary or secondary school.”

Problem: This bill is based on the false belief that all sex offenders are dangerous to children, when in fact, the majority of sex offenders don’t have child victims⁸. Proximity to schools and other areas that children gather is irrelevant, as most children are abused in their homes or in other private places behind closed doors⁹. Studies have also shown that restricting where sex offenders can live not only fails to prevent sex crimes, but makes it more difficult for them to find housing and can lead to higher populations of homeless registrants. Homeless registrants have higher re-offense rates than registrants who have stable housing and access to family/support networks¹⁰. Similar restrictions have also prevented mothers and fathers who are registrants from bringing their children to school or attending school functions with them. Children of registrants in areas like this are often singled out and targeted by other peers and even adults.

As usual, the root of the problem with virtually every piece of proposed legislation is its exclusivity and total ignorance of facts. How can a bill possibly be about "prevention" when it only targets 5% of those who commit sex crimes in the first place? Our legislators, and especially the public, do not seem to comprehend that all that "tough" legislation, public shaming and vitriol hatred of society doesn't begin to touch the people we really should be protecting our children from.

Our society loves high-profile atrocities, yet consistently fails to see that we're failing at protecting ourselves or anyone else from the big bad predators who inspired Megan's Law, Jessica's Law, and other laws named for horribly violated children. Why? Because by projecting that image onto 750,000 registrants in this country and treating them accordingly, they slip through the cracks while we are left to sort out the bloated mess we created.

Inevitably, many will jump on the politically-motivated bandwagon of "child safety" and pledge their undying support to methods that punish, destroy and harm - all the while claiming it's in the name of kids. Practical people will do their kids a whole lot more good by taking that passion and addressing public policy makers - and asking why they've been lied to.

1. “Juveniles who commit sex crimes against minors”, US Dept of Justice, 2009. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227763.pdf

2. “Sex Offender Recidivism in Connecticut”, Connecticut DOC, 2012. http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/cjppd/cjresearch/recidivismstudy/sex_offender_recidivism_2012_final.pdf

3. “Sex offender populations, recidivism and actuarial assessment”, New York Div. of Probation and Correctional Alternatives, 2007. http://theparson.net/so/NYsomgmtbulletinmay2007.pdf

4, 6. “A Time-Series Analysis of New York State’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Law”, Dr. Jeffrey Sandler PhD, 2008. http://www.rethinking.org.nz/images/newsletter%20PDF/Issue%2078/C%2002%20watchedpot.pdf

5. “The Efficacy of County-Level Sex Offender Residence Restrictions in New York”, Dr. Kelly Socia PhD, 2011. http://www.endsexcrime.org/Efficiency%20of%20County-Level%20Sex%20Offender%20Residence%20Restrictions%20in%20New%20York.pdf

7. “Collateral Damage: Family members of registered sex offenders”, Dr. Jill Levensen PhD, 2005. http://www.opd.ohio.gov/AWA_Information/AW_levenson_family_impact_study.pdf

All children are precious...until they're "bad"

I support reform of post-release management for sex offenders of all ages, but lately I've been hearing a lot about juvenile offenders. Even though my fiancee was charged as an adult, his age at the time of his crime was still that of a child - and morally, I believe that all children who commit sex crimes are still children, even if on a whim, the court decides to treat them as "adults".

Before anyone gets all over me, yes, I acknowledge that there are some children who commit particularly heinous, purposeful crimes - sexual or not - and they need to be TREATED (treated, not punished) differently than others. But the majority of "juvenile sex offenders" we hear about in the news are not violent or dangerous kids. Troubled, perhaps - in certain circumstances. The truth is, the majority of us over the age of 18 have probably committed acts as teens that would have us labeled "sex offenders" - especially if our entire adolescence was probed and analyzed by people looking for problems.

Calling adolescence the period of life that most of us associate with angst, awkwardness and confusion - where parents lament the skimpy outfits of their daughters and sons lock themselves in their bedrooms with Sears catalogs - approaches unbearably cliche. "High school" has provided us with the plot for thousands of movies over the years involving the intricacies of hooking up, sneaking out and losing one's virginity; and even more recently, TV shows on cable television that glamorize teenage pregnancy have gained following with not just teenagers, but their parents too! Just how is it that for the most part, our society accepts and even embraces this attitude when it comes to kids and sex - but when someone mentions the term "sex offender", out come the pitchforks and utter inability to even consider anything other than terrifying monsters?

It is funny how the media and lawmakers use children to their advantage. When justifying the public sex offender registry, "child safety" is the go-to excuse. We get images of angelic little children in our heads, dressed in adorable outfits, out on picnics or at the beach or hugging their parents. The idea of someone doing harm to such helpless, innocent creatures makes us sad and angry, and since the registry and sex offenders are portrayed as the most likely source of this horror, suddenly we turn into spiteful, hateful, vengeful people willing to latch on to anything that sounds like it represents our emotions. But too often, we are fooled into projecting those emotions onto people who have not, and will not, commit those acts. Often, those people are children themselves - the very "angels" that are the source of our emotion.

KOIN Local 6 news in Washington State reported a story earlier this week about a "sex offender coming to Woodland High". Sounds scary - was it a maintenance man, a substitute teacher, or a school administrator? No. It was a 15-year-old child, convicted of an unspecified "sex crime" committed when he was 13. He had completed his sentence and was now attempting to return to school. Apparently, it was a slow week for KOIN, and they decided to cause an uproar among parents by exploiting a child himself for the supposed reasons of "child safety".

A 13-year-old child cannot legally buy cigarettes, alcohol, firearms or pornography. A 13-year-old child cannot vote, drive a car, or hold a job. In most states, a 13-year-old child who engages in sexual behavior with someone just one year older than them is considered a "victim". Who in their right mind believes that a 13-year-old can understand and plan for the moral and legal consequences of sexual activity - but not for smoking a cigarette or drinking a beer? At one point does a child go from innocent, precious and worthy of protection by any means necessary - to a dangerous, predatory "sex offender" worthy of local news-level humiliation and judgment?

How can we possibly claim to care about children when we are so willing to destroy them when they make mistakes?

If you knew I loved a sex offender...would you feel the same way?

Before I begin, I'd just like to make one thing very clear.

I do not advocate or condone sexual abuse, exploitation, assault, or any other relations between children and adults. I believe that sex crimes should be punished justly, and acknowledge that the pain suffered by victims of sex crimes and their families is real and incomprehensible to most of us. My belief is that there are better ways to manage how we treat individuals convicted of sex crimes after they have completed their sentences - methods that do not put them or their families in danger and make it possible for them to become contributing, stable members of the community. I am confident that by utilizing research, statistics and science, we can craft laws that educate children and adults about the truth behind sex crimes, and effectively prevent these crimes from happening in the first place.

Occasionally when going about mundane activities such as running errands, pumping gas, or walking my dogs, I find myself wondering what the people I encounter might assume about me. I think I'm a fairly pleasant person; I try to smile and wave if I catch someone's eye, I make a point to be genial with cashiers, receptionists and other customers. I hold the door for people, say thank you and excuse me. Those who are acquainted with me know I have a soft spot for rescue dogs, love my job as a church pianist and thoroughly enjoy a good game of Pictionary. I'm often described as charming, passionate and clever. I bet if I were to tell most people I interact with regularly that I regularly fear for my safety in my own home, they would be confused, and if I asked them, would say that someone like me shouldn't have to feel that way.

But do they really believe that? If these pleasant strangers were to discover that I share my life and my home with someone who, according to New York state, is a "sexually violent predator" - would they still feel that me and all my charms deserve the same right to privacy and stability that they do? Would they go home and tell their family not to go near me or my house because they might get violently and sexually preyed upon? Would all the things they like and know about me, become meaningless?

I would like to hope that somehow, the good they know about me would be enough for them to stop and think for a second, that maybe everything they've heard and been told about sex offenders might not be true, if a person like me loves one. I would really like to hope that after meeting the sweet, gentle, compassionate man I love, they might question the validity behind his inflammatory label - and see how easy it truly is for good people to make mistakes - or simply get caught up in the aftermath because they love someone who has.

By supporting the public sex offender registry and consciously remaining unaware of the facts, society is telling me that I have no right to safety or security; that it's okay for me to be ostracized; and that I do not deserve to be happy with the person I love. They would never know it if they passed me on the street - or even if they interacted with me. I look, act, and talk like almost everyone else . Not the fact that I am a human being, an American, or a woman are enough to grant me the right to freedom or basic privacy - the darkest day of my loved one's past is the sole determining factor of my worth.

I don't think I'm amazing, or particularly spectacular. I think I am pretty normal. I don't think I deserve better treatment than anyone else. But I do think I deserve the right to be me, unapologetically and without fear.  That includes sharing my life and home with the person I love. Would you deny me that? Would you deny anyone that? I want someone to come up to me and tell me, to my face, how in hell that protects children, families or anyone. Can you?

I love a sex offender, and no amount of hatred will change that.

My fifth interview (the second one to be televised thus far) aired last night on WWNY in the Northern country region of New York. Watch it here: http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Feedback-Woman-Fights-for-Rights-Of-Sex-Offenders--Families-147190125.html.

Understanding the 45-minute interview had to be edited significantly to fit into the allotted time slot, I was satisfied with the results. My only caveat was that since Geoff's charge was mentioned, his age at the time of the crime should have been specified, (he was twelve, not "a teenager") and the circumstances under which the crime occurred would have been helpful. Overall, it did as much as a two minute piece could do to detail the day-to-day struggles faced by tens of thousands of families in New York, and hundreds of thousands of families nationwide.

The majority of the comments on WWNY's Facebook page (link: http://www.facebook.com/WWNY7.WNYF28/posts/409096565775456?notif_t=share_reply) displayed a great deal of outrage among viewers. It seems that they heard the term "sex offender" and made up their minds right then and there, rather than actually listening to the heart of the story. Some people went so far as to suggest that families and even children of registrants are fair game merely because they share their home and life with a former offender. Mostly, though, the comments displayed an all-too-common problem: lack of awareness.

As frustrating as it is to be faced with this type of apathy and misguided anger, we have the most important "weapon" of all, as family members and friends of registrants - our lives. Most people admittedly get their "knowledge" of sex crimes from the news media, which as we all know, has exploited the topic of child safety/child sex abuse and molded it into the most fear-provoking, hysterical, anecdotal subject it possibly can be. Much of what is reported is inaccurate or at best, incomplete. By standing up, telling our stories and muddling through the outpouring of hate - we will be heard. They bombard the public with fallacies - bu we can bombard them with truth.

If you love a person enough to stick with them through the nightmare of being on the sex offender registry - whether it be as a mother or father, a wife or husband, a daughter, a son, an aunt or uncle, a grandparent or a friend - that love is strong enough to withstand even the most cruel, angry accusations. You have gotten this far; the only thing left is to show everyone that the love you feel for the registrant in your life is far stronger than all the hate in the world.

"Sex offenders are bad! Child safety, check." (Child Safety Zone hysteria)

There's a poorly researched Associated Press article circulating around the internet right now about a crowded homeless shelter in Cranston, RI that houses about 100 men. The shelter is allegedly in very poor condition and past its maximum capacity. The shelter directors want to relocate a few blocks away into an abandoned women's prison, which would allow them to offer their residents efficiency apartments as well as cleaning, maintenance and job skills classes to help them re-integrate into society. The problem? Big bad SEX OFFENDERS! Who all want to hunt down and prey on little children! It's so so so scary! Except it's not. Out of the 100 or so residents, "4 or 5" are sex offenders. To read the little gem by David Klepper: http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2012/03/26/cramped_ri_homeless_shelter_faces_hurdles_in_move/

For some unknown reason Mr. Klepper decided to ask Suzanne Arena for her opinion on the issue, which not surprisingly was that she did not support the move. She continued on, stating that she "never wanted them here" (referring to sex offenders). "Not in my backyard" strikes again. So where's the solution, Ms. Arena? Push them all into another community and let those children pay the price? Of course, that's assuming that these registrants are predatory monsters who have insatiable appetites for little kids. That's what Ms. Arena believes, and what most of the local politicians have latched onto. Luckily, that's probably not true. But the fact that Ms. Arena and her supporters are so quick to denounce the registrants, yet offer no solutions, is troubling.

This issue is nothing new, in fact it smacks of residency restriction and child safety zone hysteria of the recent past. For whatever reason, this particular incident of emotion-based, factless fear-mongering that lacks any actual solution inspired me to record a two minute video for your viewing pleasure. I'd like to make it very clear that this type of attitude is precisely what leads to re-offense. Remove every last remnant of incentive for registrants to re-integrate healthily, and what do you get? A desperate person with nothing to lose. Prohibit sex offenders from residing in a homeless shelter? People who are impossible to track or monitor. Make no mistake; when you fall into this type of mindset, you are not a child safety advocate. You are promoting new sex crimes.

I am collateral damage of the sex offender registry

So, I've finally made my TV debut. If you haven't seen it yet, it's worth the four minutes: http://www.wktv.com/news/local/Woman-engaged-to-sex-offender-registry-ruined-our-life-143561776.html

They did an OK job; not great, not bad. 90% of what I said was edited out, including my emphasis on the millions of children and family members whose lives are in danger because of the registry. Also conveniently not included was my polite, concise debunking of several of the most common myths (no, most sex offenders don't re-offend. No, they have not all committed crimes against children. Most victims are abused by people who aren't on the registry.) They also royally screwed up my fiancee's crime and conviction dates, which ironically demonstrates just how misleading the registry is (his entry includes the age of his victim when the crime was committed, NOT when he was convicted, which is a considerable difference). But they did give me something: a platform.

I can assure you that this is far from the last anyone will hear from me. Inevitably, some of the 165+ comments below the story were ignorant, deragatory and missed my point entirely, that their hatred and lack of knowledge is hurting innocent people. Someone went so far as to create a username on the forum "Topix" using my name, and post that my fiancee and I were looking for children to molest. A few months ago it would have bothered me. Now it just makes me laugh.

Whoever that sad person is, who has so little going on in their own life that they try to defame a complete stranger, is doing exactly what I want them to do. I'm glad they would rather act like kindergarteners while I'm out making change and raising awareness. I don't know if they are just scared of the truth, reality or both - but they and all the others that take time out of their busy days to create websites about me, cyber-stalk me and copy and paste random sentences from the hundreds of letters I've written are doing just what I want them to do: STAYING OUT OF MY WAY.

And this is what brings me to owning your fear, family members. You are collateral damage. As long as the registry exists, YOU and your family are in danger. You are easy targets and you are suffering punishment for a crime you didn't commit. The fact that you love a person who made a mistake in their life is nothing to be ashamed of; suggesting that the destruction of families is an acceptable solution to minimizing danger is ludicrous and goes against the very fiber of what our country's values are supposed to be. Destroying families to protect families? I'm confused.

We have two choices: live in fear and hope no one bothers us, our loved ones won't be hurt or killed, and surrender to the reality that we are second class citizens. Or, we can OWN that fear - the fear we've been forced into by a self-serving government and ignorant masses - and use it to our advantage. Family members, you are NOT alone. You have the chance to be a part of something amazing. Please, please join me and the others who have risen out of the darkness and take back our rights to love who we love and not be persecuted for it. The time is now. WE are collateral damage and we cannot be ignored!

Be sure to check out my follow-up to the interview, particularly Rich Ferrucci's pathetic defense of the registry, at the top left of this page.

Fighting for families

This week I heard two stories from two different people in two different parts of the country. They have never met or spoken to each other. Yet they got the same infuriating news from their childrens' schools: you are not welcome at your child's graduation. In fact, if you show up, you will be arrested and led away in handcuffs. Both men are registered sex offenders.

Both men were saddened to miss such an important event in their child's life, but were far more concerned with their children's reactions - humiliation, sadness, disappointment, anger. Their children have already been forced to live through the accusations, trial, and incarceration of their fathers. Both children and their mothers already risk their safety simply by sharing a home with their father, because their addresses are publicized on the registry. Now this?

Every day I speak with women whose husbands or boyfriends are barred from living with them because our justice system thinks they will molest or abuse any and all children under 18, even if their previous convictions do not involve children. I even know women who have divorced their husbands and moved away from them; not because they don't love or support each other, but because they were threatened with losing custody of their children if they did not do so. That's right - families literally shredded in half and financially ruined due to our society's method of punishing the poor choices of one parent.

Fathers who do live with their children often cannot accompany them to school or other activities where non-related children may be. This may seem trivial, but think about how many important events in a child's life occur at such places: graduation, of course - as well as plays, sporting events, recitals, and even something as mundane as dropping them off at any of the aforementioned events. If you don't think the police actually enforce these laws, think again. A 31-year-old man in Jacksonville, North Carolina was arrested in January of this year for dropping his daughter off at a Girl Scouts meeting. Can you imagine how frightening and embarrassing this must have been for his young daughter?

Unfortunately, as I've mentioned before, children themselves are not immune to the all-encompassing vacuum of hell that goes along with being forced to register as a sex offender. This 2009 study by the US Department of Justice reveals that not only do children make up about a quarter of all registered sex offenders, they also account for over a third of all sexual crimes against other children. With nearly 750,000 sex offenders on the registry in this country, that means just under 190,000 high-school age children (and younger) are being subjected to a damning lifelong label and punishment. In addition to the crippling effect this has on their futures, what about that of their siblings and parents?

Having an incarcerated or previously imprisoned family member is never easy. However the families of sex offenders are subjected to far more hardship and instability than the families of other felons. I say that all families deserve peace of mind, security and privacy.

A family in the UK with two young children reported that their kids were having difficulty sleeping because they were so terrified of being attacked after an unknown individual posted false sex offender posters and listed their address. But is this not exactly what we are doing to the families of sex offenders right here in the United States? Some argue that it is a worthy price to be paid if it protects just one child. But what about the children of sex offenders - are they exempt from the very laws created to "protect" them? If so, why? Who decides which children, and which people for that matter, are deserving of basic human rights and who are not?

It certainly shouldn't be self-absorbed politicians and lawmakers who directly benefit from laws that reflect nothing but misguided public hysteria.