Original Article
02/07/2014
By Jesse Bogan
ST. LOUIS - New filings in a class action lawsuit call on 200 rapists and pedophiles to be released, claiming the Missouri Department of Mental Health program that is supposed to treat them is “government at its worst.”
Sex Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services, or SORTS, was created to work with sex offenders after they complete prison sentences. Civil courts determined the men were too likely to reoffend because of a “mental abnormality.” Now as mental health patients, they are held indefinitely in secure facilities in Farmington and Fulton until their risk falls to acceptable levels.
Since the program started in 1999, nobody has completed treatment. The lawsuit alleges the $25 million program is mismanaged, underfunded, overcrowded and is essentially a prison disguised as a mental hospital.
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2009, claims problems with SORTS “arose out of the belief that the imprisonment of those branded as sexually violent predators were so reviled that no one would notice nor care when tucked away.”
The Post-Dispatch recently reported on internal state emails and memos that suggest that even administrators and employees of the program worried about its validity. In 2009, Missouri Department of Mental Health director Keith Schafer wrote that SORTS would be a “sham” if nobody completed treatment and was released. A former chief of operations wrote that the program was a “disaster waiting to happen.”
Those notes and others were included in Thursday’s court filing.
Department of Mental Health spokeswoman Debra Walker said department officials hadn’t received notice of the new filing. She said the issue was “a matter for the courts.” The Missouri attorney general’s office, which litigates the civil commitment cases, also declined to comment.
Missouri is one of 20 states that has civil commitment laws for sexually violent predators. Many of the programs started in the 1990s after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Kansas’ law. Other states have fared much better than Missouri in showing that patients can progress through the program, according to the lawsuit.
By February 2005, Wisconsin granted 46 conditional releases and 20 final discharges; Illinois granted 18 and 1, respectively.
Missouri recently granted its first three residents conditional release, allowing them to leave SORTS a few hours at a time with strict guidelines. Missouri also recently opened an annex inside the facility at Farmington that is supposed to teach eight residents life skills they’ll need when they get out some day.
About 20 people are admitted to the program each year.
Plaintiff attorney Eric Selig, who recently took over the civil action lawsuit as lead counsel, said closing the facility was the ultimate goal.
The suit claims SORTS is “so far gone that it is irretrievably broken, cannot be salvaged and thus must immediately be shut down and all of its inhabitants set free. The constitution demands no other relief.”
Documents attached to the suit point to internal concerns about overcrowding. One 2009 report said the situation is “placing accreditation efforts at risk.”
In another email attached to the suit, Dr. Jonathan Rosenboom, former director of behavioral services at SORTS, wrote that he was “often struck by the unsettling conclusion that direct patient care is one of the last priorities when stacked against all of the other expectations.”
The Department of Mental Health has said the program meets national standards for hospital care and that overall funding has not been reduced since 2009.
In all, more than 500,000 internal records have been obtained in the lawsuit. The suit alleges that documents were previously withheld on the “erroneous claim that emails had been inadvertently purged from its computers and servers.”
New Life Style
Jumat, 07 Februari 2014
OH - Fire at sex offender’s camper ruled arson
Original Article
02/06/2014
By Greg Sowinski
GILBOA - A fire inside a camper where a man facing a 46-count indictment including child sex crimes lived has been ruled arson, but authorities have no suspects.
The State Fire Marshal’s Office has closed the investigation into the fire unless additional information surfaces, said Michael Duchesne, a spokesman for the agency.
The fire happened Dec. 21 inside a camper. Someone placed a large amount of clothing and combustible materials in the middle of the camper and set it on fire, Duchesne said.
The fire occurred the day after _____ was arraigned on criminal charges.
_____ is charged with four counts of endangering children, one count of compulsion to involuntary servitude, two counts of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles, six counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor and 33 counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity oriented material or performance.
The charges carry a maximum sentence of 90.5 years in prison.
Two counts involve the same child and the other charges are for other children, a prosecutor said.
_____ is a registered sex offender for crimes in Florida in 2001 and 2006. Those crimes included committing or simulating sexual acts with or in the presence of a child under the age of 16 in a lewd, lascivious or indecent manner by an adult.
_____ is not the owner of the camper. The owner is _____, Duchesne said.
Anyone with information on the fire, including seeing something or hearing someone speak about the fire with an unusual level of interest or knowledge, should contact the State Fire Marshal’s Office at 800-589-2728.
02/06/2014
By Greg Sowinski
GILBOA - A fire inside a camper where a man facing a 46-count indictment including child sex crimes lived has been ruled arson, but authorities have no suspects.
The State Fire Marshal’s Office has closed the investigation into the fire unless additional information surfaces, said Michael Duchesne, a spokesman for the agency.
The fire happened Dec. 21 inside a camper. Someone placed a large amount of clothing and combustible materials in the middle of the camper and set it on fire, Duchesne said.
The fire occurred the day after _____ was arraigned on criminal charges.
_____ is charged with four counts of endangering children, one count of compulsion to involuntary servitude, two counts of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles, six counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor and 33 counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity oriented material or performance.
The charges carry a maximum sentence of 90.5 years in prison.
Two counts involve the same child and the other charges are for other children, a prosecutor said.
_____ is a registered sex offender for crimes in Florida in 2001 and 2006. Those crimes included committing or simulating sexual acts with or in the presence of a child under the age of 16 in a lewd, lascivious or indecent manner by an adult.
_____ is not the owner of the camper. The owner is _____, Duchesne said.
Anyone with information on the fire, including seeing something or hearing someone speak about the fire with an unusual level of interest or knowledge, should contact the State Fire Marshal’s Office at 800-589-2728.
Label:
CrimeArson,
CrimeVigilante,
Ohio
Lokasi:
Gilboa, OH, USA
FLITZONE SOLUTION SISPRO PSB 1.0.0 FULL VERSION
SisPro PSB atau biasa juga disebut dengan Sistem Informasi Professional Penerimaan Siswa Baru merupakan program yang dibuat untuk mempermudah pengelolaan informasi dan administrasi penerimaan siswa baru pada suatu instansi pendidikan khususnya SD, SLTP, SLTA, SMK dan lain sebagainya.
Program ini cukup ringan dengan design interface yang sangat mudah untuk dipahami. Untuk melihat sekilas menu
Kamis, 06 Februari 2014
VA - Virginia Teen Girl Accused Of Posting Nude Selfies, Arrested For Child Porn
Original Article
02/06/2014
By David Lohr
A 16-year-old Virginia girl is facing child pornography charges, after police say she posted photos of herself naked on Twitter.
Authorities received an anonymous tip describing the photos, which were posted to Twitter around Jan. 30. The girl, a student in James City County, admitted to posting "multiple" lewd photos of herself to the social networking website last week, according to police.
"One of our school resource officers made contact with her and her mother," Stephanie Williams-Ortery, a spokeswoman for the James City County Police Department told The Huffington Post.
"The young lady acknowledged that she had posted the pictures of herself [and] the mother acknowledged that the photos were of her daughter," Williams-Ortery said.
According to police, the girl, who has not been named, also admitted to sending photos directly to male acquaintances she was hoping to impress. She has been charged as a juvenile with felony "possession, reproduction, distribution, solicitation and facilitation of child pornography," Williams-Ortery said.
Not everyone in the community agrees with how police are handling the case.
"I don't think she should be charged with child pornography, because she is a child herself," parent Emily Altman told WAVY.com.
"That is distributing child pornography?" said parent Dometre Mobley. "She is a child."
However, because the girl is charged as a juvenile Virginia law would not require her to register as a sex offender, if she is found guilty, so long as she fulfills her obligations to the court.
02/06/2014
By David Lohr
A 16-year-old Virginia girl is facing child pornography charges, after police say she posted photos of herself naked on Twitter.
Authorities received an anonymous tip describing the photos, which were posted to Twitter around Jan. 30. The girl, a student in James City County, admitted to posting "multiple" lewd photos of herself to the social networking website last week, according to police.
"One of our school resource officers made contact with her and her mother," Stephanie Williams-Ortery, a spokeswoman for the James City County Police Department told The Huffington Post.
"The young lady acknowledged that she had posted the pictures of herself [and] the mother acknowledged that the photos were of her daughter," Williams-Ortery said.
According to police, the girl, who has not been named, also admitted to sending photos directly to male acquaintances she was hoping to impress. She has been charged as a juvenile with felony "possession, reproduction, distribution, solicitation and facilitation of child pornography," Williams-Ortery said.
Not everyone in the community agrees with how police are handling the case.
"I don't think she should be charged with child pornography, because she is a child herself," parent Emily Altman told WAVY.com.
"That is distributing child pornography?" said parent Dometre Mobley. "She is a child."
However, because the girl is charged as a juvenile Virginia law would not require her to register as a sex offender, if she is found guilty, so long as she fulfills her obligations to the court.
Label:
16YearsOld,
ChildPorn,
OffenderChild,
OffenderFemale,
Sexting,
Video,
Virginia
Lokasi:
James City, VA, USA
CANADA - Convicted sex offender sues for brutal jailhouse attack at Calgary Correctional Centre
Original Article
02/05/2014
By KEVIN MARTIN
Staff at the Calgary Correctional Centre failed to adequately protect a convicted sex offender who was swarmed by fellow inmates, a $300,000 lawsuit claims.
_____ was serving a nine-month sentence at the Calgary jail in June, 2012 when he says he was attacked.
His claim alleges those in charge of the institution didn’t ensure his safety while he served his time.
“They failed to intervene and protect _____ when the assault took place,” his lawsuit, which lists the jail’s director among the defendants, says.
“They failed to sufficiently supervise the serving prisoners at the CCC, such that an assault against a fellow prisoner would not have taken place,” his statement of claim alleges.
“They knew, or ought to have known, that as a serving prisoner he would likely suffer an assault at the hands of fellow prisoners, yet took no pro-active steps to ensure _____’s safety, or to isolate them from him.”
_____ was jumped by a group of four other prisoners on June 23, 2012, his claim states.
Court records show he was handed a nine-month jail term plus 18 months probation 22 days earlier in Edmonton, on a charge of sexual touching.
His lawsuit says _____, 50, suffered multiple injuries in the attack, in which he was struck several times in the head, chest and back area.
At one point during the assault he was held down by some of his assailants while others punched him, it says.
Because of his wounds _____ has been unable to work and now lives on Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, the claim says.
Statements of defence disputing the unproven allegations haven’t been filed.
02/05/2014
By KEVIN MARTIN
Staff at the Calgary Correctional Centre failed to adequately protect a convicted sex offender who was swarmed by fellow inmates, a $300,000 lawsuit claims.
_____ was serving a nine-month sentence at the Calgary jail in June, 2012 when he says he was attacked.
His claim alleges those in charge of the institution didn’t ensure his safety while he served his time.
“They failed to intervene and protect _____ when the assault took place,” his lawsuit, which lists the jail’s director among the defendants, says.
“They failed to sufficiently supervise the serving prisoners at the CCC, such that an assault against a fellow prisoner would not have taken place,” his statement of claim alleges.
“They knew, or ought to have known, that as a serving prisoner he would likely suffer an assault at the hands of fellow prisoners, yet took no pro-active steps to ensure _____’s safety, or to isolate them from him.”
_____ was jumped by a group of four other prisoners on June 23, 2012, his claim states.
Court records show he was handed a nine-month jail term plus 18 months probation 22 days earlier in Edmonton, on a charge of sexual touching.
His lawsuit says _____, 50, suffered multiple injuries in the attack, in which he was struck several times in the head, chest and back area.
At one point during the assault he was held down by some of his assailants while others punched him, it says.
Because of his wounds _____ has been unable to work and now lives on Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, the claim says.
Statements of defence disputing the unproven allegations haven’t been filed.
Lokasi:
Calgary, AB, Canada
LA - JACKSON v. STATE
Original Article
Excerpt:
On February 16, 1993, Jackson entered a plea of guilty to "Carnal Knowledge of a Juvenile" pursuant to La. R.S. 14:80. The conviction was based on Jackson, then twenty-three (23) years old, engaging in consensual sex with a female under the age of seventeen (17). Jackson was sentenced to three (3) years with the Louisiana Department of Corrections. The sentence was suspended and Jackson was placed on eighteen (18) months of active supervised probation. At the time of sentencing, it appears Jackson was not informed that he was required to register as a sex offender, nor was it listed as part of his probation. The probation period was successfully completed and Jackson was released from supervision on August 16, 1994.
On August 29, 1994, Jackson again engaged in consensual sex with a female under the age of seventeen (17). That encounter resulted in another plea of guilty to "Carnal Knowledge of a Juvenile" pursuant to La.R.S. 14:80. Pursuant to the plea, Jackson was sentenced to seven and one-half (7½) years with the Louisiana Department of Corrections. The sentence was suspended and Jackson was placed on five (5) years of active supervised probation. The requirement to register as a sex offender was made a condition of his probation, and Jackson registered as a sex offender on June 27, 1995. At that time, under La.R.S. 15:544, the registration period for sex offenders was ten (10) years. Jackson successfully completed his probation and was released from supervision on April 10, 2000.
Excerpt:
On February 16, 1993, Jackson entered a plea of guilty to "Carnal Knowledge of a Juvenile" pursuant to La. R.S. 14:80. The conviction was based on Jackson, then twenty-three (23) years old, engaging in consensual sex with a female under the age of seventeen (17). Jackson was sentenced to three (3) years with the Louisiana Department of Corrections. The sentence was suspended and Jackson was placed on eighteen (18) months of active supervised probation. At the time of sentencing, it appears Jackson was not informed that he was required to register as a sex offender, nor was it listed as part of his probation. The probation period was successfully completed and Jackson was released from supervision on August 16, 1994.
On August 29, 1994, Jackson again engaged in consensual sex with a female under the age of seventeen (17). That encounter resulted in another plea of guilty to "Carnal Knowledge of a Juvenile" pursuant to La.R.S. 14:80. Pursuant to the plea, Jackson was sentenced to seven and one-half (7½) years with the Louisiana Department of Corrections. The sentence was suspended and Jackson was placed on five (5) years of active supervised probation. The requirement to register as a sex offender was made a condition of his probation, and Jackson registered as a sex offender on June 27, 1995. At that time, under La.R.S. 15:544, the registration period for sex offenders was ten (10) years. Jackson successfully completed his probation and was released from supervision on April 10, 2000.
Lokasi:
Louisiana, USA
CA - PEOPLE v. POSLOF
Original Article
Excerpt:
Defendant Poslof appeals his jury conviction for failing to register as a sex offender in Twenty-Nine Palms, in violation of Penal Code section 290, subdivision (g)(2).1 In a bifurcated trial, the jury also found true allegations that defendant had two prior convictions for lewd and lascivious acts upon a child,2 which [24 Cal.Rptr.3d 265] qualified as serious or violent felonies,3 and had served two prior prison terms and failed to remain free of prison custody for five years.4 The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 27 years to life in state prison.
Defendant contends he was unaware he had an obligation to register as a sex offender in Twentynine Palms. He therefore claims there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding he willfully failed to register as a sex offender in violation of section 290. Defendant also contends the trial court did not properly instruct the jury on the "willfulness" requirement and compounded the error by giving the general intent instruction, CALJIC No. 3.30.
Additionally, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Romero5 motion and his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the California and United States Constitutions.
Following our earlier opinion in this case affirming the trial court judgment, the California Supreme Court granted review. The Supreme Court has transferred this case back to us with directions to vacate our earlier decision and reconsider the cause in light of its recent decision, People v. Barker (2004) 34 Cal.4th 345, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 260, 96 P.3d 507. Having done so, we again affirm the judgment.
Excerpt:
Defendant Poslof appeals his jury conviction for failing to register as a sex offender in Twenty-Nine Palms, in violation of Penal Code section 290, subdivision (g)(2).1 In a bifurcated trial, the jury also found true allegations that defendant had two prior convictions for lewd and lascivious acts upon a child,2 which [24 Cal.Rptr.3d 265] qualified as serious or violent felonies,3 and had served two prior prison terms and failed to remain free of prison custody for five years.4 The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 27 years to life in state prison.
Defendant contends he was unaware he had an obligation to register as a sex offender in Twentynine Palms. He therefore claims there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding he willfully failed to register as a sex offender in violation of section 290. Defendant also contends the trial court did not properly instruct the jury on the "willfulness" requirement and compounded the error by giving the general intent instruction, CALJIC No. 3.30.
Additionally, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Romero5 motion and his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the California and United States Constitutions.
Following our earlier opinion in this case affirming the trial court judgment, the California Supreme Court granted review. The Supreme Court has transferred this case back to us with directions to vacate our earlier decision and reconsider the cause in light of its recent decision, People v. Barker (2004) 34 Cal.4th 345, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 260, 96 P.3d 507. Having done so, we again affirm the judgment.
Label:
California,
lawSuit,
leagle
Lokasi:
California, USA
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)