The children of many of the 25 John and Jane Does seeking removal have also joined as plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed recently in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, claiming the lifetime requirement of their parents has deprived them of their constitutional rights as well.
More than 3,100 people will leave Bureau of Prisons custody starting Friday, part of what Justice Department officials call “a truly monumental effort” to comply with the First Step Act, a criminal justice law passed by Congress last year.
Most of the offenders being freed have been convicted of drug-related crimes and have been living in halfway houses across the United States in preparation for their release, acting BOP chief Hugh Hurwitz told reporters at a news conference in Washington.
Facebook updated its community standards to allow for users to call for “high-severity violence” against sexual offenders, including death threats.
Judge Barrett was unsparing in her criticism of the university’s procedures. In perhaps the most telling critique, she noted that Purdue’s process, with its permanent, devastating consequences for the student’s career, “fell short of what even a high school must provide to a student facing a days-long suspension.” Withholding evidence from the plaintiff by itself was sufficient to render the process unfair. So was the failure to provide any means of meaningfully examining the accuser’s credibility. As Barrett wrote, the evidence suggests that the committee “decided that John was guilty based on the accusation rather than the evidence.”
Revocations for rule violations — and not the commission of new crimes — is the No. 1 cause of incarceration in Wisconsin, accounting for 40% of new admissions, Wisconsin Department of Corrections figures show.
Gov. Tony Evers, who is aiming for sharp reductions in the state’s prison population, said he wants to end these so-called crimeless revocations.
The proportion of offenders reincarcerated for violating rules while on community supervision in Wisconsin has risen quickly. Such revocations made up 31% and 34% of new prison admissions in 2016 and 2017, respectively.
The court’s refusal to apply the nondelegation doctrine jeopardizes our liberties. When the court allows excessive delegation, it enables Congress to hand off tough policy questions to unelected agencies. Indeed, one of the key takeaways from political scientist Morris Fiorina’s book, “Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment,” is that members of Congress deliberately cede power to agencies so they can avoid controversial votes that might cost them their offices. Rather than behave like real legislators, they choose instead to act like ombudsmen, helping constituents who later have problems with agencies. The court’s failure to apply the nondelegation doctrine incentivizes such legislative behavior.
The Gundy court’s neglect of this is all the more troublesome when one realizes that the public’s recourse from bad laws is, primarily, to vote out those who crafted them. But when bureaucrats make the law there is no electoral recourse. And without electoral recourse, our system of government becomes uncontrollable, a monster that can impose its will without constraint.
“A jury must find every fact that is essential to an individual’s punishment,” Gorsuch said. In the case before the court, the accused received “a new prison term based instead only on facts found by a judge by a mere preponderance of the evidence.”
“The American policing profession may be facing the most fundamental questioning of its legitimacy in decades,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, in a 2017 organizational newsletter. “The very essence of policing is being debated in many cities, often because of controversial video recordings of police officers’ actions. Community trust has eroded, and the professionalism of the police is being questioned.”
A healthy job market gets some of the credit for the police recruitment crunch but, as Jones and Wexler describe, law enforcement has lost its gloss in the eyes of many Americans.
Public opinion of law enforcement slid to a 22-year low in 2015, according to a Gallup poll. Numbers have somewhat rebounded since, but that only emphasizes a racial gap in perceptions of police. African-Americans, in particular, tend to view cops as the government’s enforcers rather than as protectors, amidst widely publicized racist incidents and concerns that their communities are disproportionately (and corruptly) targeted. In addition, a militarized police culture that arms officers with weapons of war and trains officers to treat the public as enemies
Probation and parole are designed to lower prison populations and help people succeed in the community. New data show they are having the opposite effect. Until now, national data regarding the impact of probation violations on prison populations have been unavailable, resulting in a lopsided focus on parole. The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center recently engaged corrections and community supervision leaders in 50 states to develop the first complete picture of how probation and parole violations make up states’ prison populations. The analysis revealed a startling reality.
Wisconsin is Ranked #4 in the nation…
“The Constitution promises that only the people’s elected representatives may adopt new federal laws restricting liberty. Yet the statute before us scrambles that design. It purports to endow the nation’s chief prosecutor with the power to write his own criminal code governing the lives of a half-million citizens,” Gorsuch wrote. “Yes, those affected are some of the least popular among us. But if a single executive branch official can write laws restricting the liberty of this group of persons, what does that mean for the next?”
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
On June 20, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that the lifetime registration requirement for Coloradans found guilty of two or more sex offenses when they were juveniles qualifies as punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The 2-1 decision means that a lower court can now consider whether that rule is unconstitutional — and such a finding would strike another blow against a law-enforcement concept that’s become increasingly controversial.
Additionally, it is sometimes possible to distinguish men with primary pedophilic attractions from those who fell down the rabbit hole by analyzing the totality of their downloaded images. The pedophiles will tend to have a preponderance of child images, often quite well organized, whereas those without fixed sexual interests in children will have a wider variety of images, including those of adults and other themes such as bestiality, bondage and the like, with child photos in the minority.
Criminologist Jewkes is correct that the current obsession with prosecuting child porn cases distracts from the bigger picture. It not only encourages a warped and ineffective approach to child sexual abuse prevention, but it also sidelines critical analysis of legal adult porn. Because it is legal and its harm is more subtle (albeit far more pervasive), adult porn doesn’t generate the moral outrage of child pornography. But just as child porn promotes distorted beliefs about children and child sexuality, much mainstream adult porn promotes destructive messages about women – what they like, and how they should be treated. It fosters objectification, and legitimates violence and abuse.
Framing aside, the recidivism data presented in the BJS report can offer helpful perspective on the risks posed by people after release. Whether measured as rearrest, reconviction, or return to prison, BJS found that people whose most serious commitment offense was rape or sexual assault were much less likely to reoffend after release than those who served time for other offense types.
The BJS report shows that within 9 years after release: Fewer than 67% of those who served time for rape or sexual assault were rearrested for any offense, making rearrest 20% less likely for this group than all other offense categories combined (84%).
Only those who served time for homicide had a lower rate of rearrest (60%).
People who served sentences for sex offenses were much less likely to be rearrested for another sex offense (7.7%) than for a property (24%), drug (18.5%), or public order (59%) offense (a category which includes probation and parole violations).
Only half of those who served sentences for rape or sexual assault had a new arrest that led to a conviction (for any offense), compared to 69% of everyone released in 2005 (in the 29 states with data).
While the court ruled that the state does, in fact, have the right to require out-of-state offenders to register, it found the registry law too sweeping, penalizing rehabilitated sex offenders without offering them any relief from the registry’s consequences.
“ASORA is overbroad because it imposes its requirements on all persons convicted of designated offenses without affording them a hearing at which they might show that they are not dangerous,” Senior Justice Warren Matthews wrote in the majority opinion.
The decision represents a victory for Daryl L. Thompson, Doe’s attorney, who has been waging battle in the courts for 25 years to allow offenders the opportunity to challenge their placement on the registry.
“There is something fundamentally wrong with one size fits all,” he said.
STIPULATED ORDER FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND FOR 90-DAY DEFERRAL OF DECISION ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
Registration laws for those convicted of sex-related offenses, and more specifically the housing restrictions that impact these individuals, are counterproductive. The registries ensnare the wrong people. Overbroad housing restrictions make communities less safe while fostering a false sense of security. Sound policy stands on good science, and the science could not be clearer. Individuals convicted of sex-related offenses are statistically unlikely to reoffend, and recidivism rates can be further reduced with the right changes in law and policy. We urge New York City and State governments to address these challenges head-on.
Gundy has become a cause célèbre among libertarian legal activists, who see in his case an opening they’ve long sought. The question before the court turns on whether Congress delegated too much of its legislative power.
Children who have been labeled sex offenders often struggle to lead normal lives after serving time. Strict rules limit where sex offenders can live or work. Some cannot live with family members who have children, and missing a deadline can result in a felony conviction for failing to register. “Gabriel” had been arrested for sexually touching a playmate at the age of eleven. He did not reoffend, but he lived on the streets after leaving the Texas Youth Center at age 17 when he failed to find an apartment that would accept him. In a Catch-22 faced by many on registries, he was then arrested for failing to register a home address (a felony) and sentenced to a year in prison. Other offenses that can trip up those on registries: changing their Yelp account username, parking in a different place, failing to have mail forwarded to a new address.
From the census citizenship question and political gerrymandering to the separation of church and state, the high court will make some rulings of consequence over the next month.
Gundy v. U.S. (argued in October): Sex offender case dealing with how much power is too much to give to the U.S. attorney general for his application of the law.
“Improving our parole system is an important part of reforming our criminal justice system and eliminating the racial disparities that have led to increased incarceration rates for people of color,” Evers said in a news release.
Tate, a lifelong resident of Racine, has been a 3rd District alderman in Racine since 2017. He has professional experience as a social worker, case worker and mental health care provider within the criminal justice system and in community health settings.
In Gundy v. United States, the petitioner urges the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down under the nondelegation doctrine a statute authorizing the U.S. Attorney General to adopt rules requiring the registration of certain sex offenders because Congress failed to address the “fundamental policy questions” that would be at issue in the Attorney General’s rulemaking. The Court has not used the nondelegation doctrine in more than 80 years to declare a statute unconstitutional. However, in more recent years the Court has developed administrative law principles, most notably with its major rules doctrine, to give little or no deference to agency rules that address significant issues without clear congressional guidance. Now some justices may seek in Gundy to revitalize the nondelegation doctrine as a tool to rein in the administrative state by not merely invalidating individual rulemakings but striking down entire statutory provisions as unconstitutional.
Apparently some women do lie
The Dobbs Wire:
Banishment! In the 21st century many localities in the United States use an ancient means to get rid of people who have been stigmatized and are despised, banishment. More formally and politely known as “residency restrictions,” the desired result of such laws is to drive individuals who are blacklisted — required to sign the sex offense registry — out of their houses and even out of town altogether. The most infamous example of these awful laws is the encampment of homeless registered persons that sprung up under the Julia Tuttle Causeway in Florida. In the last several years over 90 cities and towns in Minnesota have enacted banishment laws. A class action lawsuit began to expose the unconstitutionality of a state-run facility in which hundreds of registrants were locked up indefinitely in so-called civil commitment, with no real hope of getting out. While the case was pending just the idea that anyone might be released from the facility, to breathe fresh air and go about their life, touched off so much fear that public officials with little ability to resist stupid ideas passed a wave of ‘get out of town’ laws. Residency restrictions certainly need a lot more public discussion.
Law students at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota rose to the occasion, put on a symposium with presenters including Patty Wetterling and Jill Levenson and drew an audience of several hundred. Kudos to the organizers–the law student staff of the Journal of Public Law and Policy, and the event’s sponsors. The video has just been posted, have a look! -Bill Dobbs, The Dobbs Wire
Source: Spring 2019 Symposium
Since integrity and ethics falter after time one in a law enforcement job, then why isn’t there a mandatory term of service? I won’t deny that the job is stressful and it will alter your perception of people. But when any one officer gets so tainted in their beliefs and behaviors, that they become a danger to the people they have sworn to protect and serve, it is the duty of the people in the community and the department that employs them to DO THE RIGHT THING, not the political thing and pull them from the streets and get them the help that they need to help put their ethical compass back to true north?
What happens instead is that another set of police officers do an ‘internal investigation’, when have you ever seen a internal agency ever be completely honest in their investigations of ‘one of their own’? NEVER. It isn’t human nature, it is human nature to protect those that you care about or have an affinity to, police are human the last time I checked so I am unsure what keeps police officers in an internal affairs department from showing any bias, when it was stated clearly already that after time on the job, it changes your ethics and integrity.
So I’ll answer the question that you pose at the end of the article. How should that be handled? First why was the boyfriend arrested first? because the girl’s face was beat up? Was that the only reason? Personally I know of a few males both husbands and boyfriends that get abused regularly by their wives and girlfriends. And you don’t know if it was the boyfriend that gave her those bruises, since she is a meth addict it could have been her dealer or a fellow addict. So first of all, why was the boyfriend arrested and removed? Because after seeing that scene, I would want to talk to all the parties, before I determined who was going to sit a night in jail, from the limited information provided, I may have left the children with the boyfriend who could have been the children’s father, but that question was never asked either.
And like I have seen on a million police shows, since is customary to cuff first and ask questions later, that also could have been employed while more information was gathered so it could be determined who was the perpetrator in that particular incident.
So the one thing that should have been addressed was a suggested solution, as it stands it appears that the author is more than OK with an unethical police force as long as we understand why they lack integrity and ethics. Because there has never been any real disciplinary action against any officer for their utter lack of respect of the people in the communities in which they serve and are paid by.
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam has vetoed legislation that would allow officials to temporarily block convicted sex offenders from using emergency shelters.