|
|
Forum: In the News
Thread (Discussion): [KELOLAND.COM] New law would create national sex offender database
Message 141534
Introduction
Posted by admin
on Nov 24, 2004 06:55 PM | Also by admin
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: N/A |
Discuss the article New law would create national sex offender database, by Jodi Schwan, which appeared on KELOLAND.COM on November 23, 2004.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 141544 (In Reply to Message 141534)
Should Take It Further
Posted by Navigatr1
on Nov 25, 2004 04:19 AM | Also by Navigatr1
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Heck, they should take it a step further by making it mandatory that all states participate in the NCIC, and make it available to everyone. Currently it is only available to law enforcement. If a National Sex Offender Registry is about giving people access to information to protect themselves, then why not give everyone access to the NCIC database so they can protect themselves. I would find this information more useful than a national sex offender registry.
--Navigatr1
CopWatch.com News Moderator
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (141534)
Message 141558 (In Reply to Message 141544)
Posted by 1dadof5
on Nov 26, 2004 08:10 AM | Also by 1dadof5
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Indiana,
Country: United States |
I agree
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (141544)
Message 141568 (In Reply to Message 141534)
Posted by orolan
on Nov 26, 2004 07:05 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
OK, so somebody tell me how Dru's Law could have saved her life. According to the text of S. 2154, inclusion in the national database is dependent strictly on ones' inclusion on the state registry. If the state doesn't have you listed, you don't get listed on the national. If Dru's alleged killer was not on the state registry, he wouldn't be on the national one.
And to top it off, what good would it have done her in a mall parking lot? Especially since she didn't even know his name? What was she going to do, sit there with her WiFi-enabled laptop and peruse the photos of all 500,000 entries EVERY time she saw a person she didn't know?
The bill's supporters tout the ability to screen neighborhoods before traveling to them. Again, the information is already on the state registry. If folks are too stupid or lazy to look at a state registry, what makes these sponsors think they'll look at a national one?
Just some more of your typical election-year "make me look good" legislation.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (141534)
Message 141587 (In Reply to Message 141568)
Posted by 1dadof5
on Nov 28, 2004 08:21 AM | Also by 1dadof5
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Indiana,
Country: United States |
its all about public perception and what gets votes. not about public safety
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (141568)
Message 141591 (In Reply to Message 141568)
Posted by dp1
on Nov 28, 2004 12:07 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
If Dru's alleged killer was not on the state registry, he wouldn't be on the national one.
Not necessarily. If he registered in another state he'd be on the national registry. When you run someone's NCIC now all previous registrations show up even if the person is a multi-state offender( that's assuming he registered in a state that contributes to NCIC database). I think Dru's law is trying to prevent people from not having access to information on sex offenders just because a state line is in the way.
My interpretation of Dru's law was more forcused on the intense supervision after release. I don't know their definition of intense, but if they are talking GPS monitoring for a year after release that wouldn't be a bad idea.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (141568)
Message 141594 (In Reply to Message 141591)
Posted by orolan
on Nov 28, 2004 02:22 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
If he registered in another state he'd be on the national registry.
Irrelevant. If the offender is not in the state he's registered in, the fact that he is also on a national registry does no good. Unless you know his name and where he is "supposed" to be. Back to the WiFi laptop and looking at 500,000 photos:-)
When you run someone's NCIC now
Again, this requires knowing the person's name. People doing abductions from mall parking lots are not in the habit of allowing their prospective abductees to run background checks on them prior to going on with the abduction;-)
I think Dru's law is trying to prevent people from not having access to information on sex offenders just because a state line is in the way.
Since when was access to state registries restricted? Out of all the registries, I know of only two that have some semblance of restriction to insure that "community notification" stays in the "community". The rest of the states leave it out there for the whole world to see.
My interpretation of Dru's law was more forcused on the intense supervision after release
A portion of the bill:
(1) IN GENERAL- Each State shall intensively monitor, for not less than 1 year, any person described under paragraph (2) who--
(A) has been unconditionally released from incarceration by the State; and
(B) has not been civilly committed pursuant to a civil commitment proceeding, or any equivalent proceeding under State law.
Note that is not "1 year", but an indefinite time period that is AT LEAST 1 year. Note also Part A, where it says "unconditionally released". In other words, game over. Time's up. Sentence complete. No court in the land will rule that long-term GPS monitoring is not further punishment under such conditions. This is one of the main stumbling blocks in the House, and the House won't pass this bill until it is either stricken or re-worded to define "monitoring". The few Representatives I've spoken to about the issue see "monitoring" as routine address verification.
GPS monitoring for a year after release that wouldn't be a bad idea.
What good will that do? Aren't you one of those who claims recidivism numbers are worhless because they only cover the first 3-5 years and of course we all know SOs will wait 10-15 years before they reoffend;-)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (141591)
Message 141608 (In Reply to Message 141594)
Posted by dp1
on Nov 28, 2004 05:34 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
What good will that do? Aren't you one of those who claims recidivism numbers are worhless because they only cover the first 3-5 years and of course we all know SOs will wait 10-15 years before they reoffend;-)
Yes indeed. And who are the ones at highest risk to reoffend? It's the releasee from prison and don't a large percentage of their crimes occur after their release? GPS monitoring has been proven to have SOME psychological deterrance according to some studies. If nothing else, it gives the parole officer and idea of his habits which can be very useful in determining relapse or future risk. It's simply a tool and will not prevent crimes plain and simple.
There's no question a national registry, state registry, county registry or any other registry for that matter won't help in a situation where a total stranger jumps out of nowhere and attacks. Doing a name search against a national data base is sure a heck of lot easier than inquiring on every single state and county registry and writing letters and e-mails to every single police department in the country. Don't you agree?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (141594)
Message 141648 (In Reply to Message 141608)
national registry?
Posted by poetsdreamscape
on Nov 30, 2004 02:21 AM | Also by poetsdreamscape
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
The registries for the most part dont keep anyone safe. Having a nation wide registry is about as useless as the local ones.Now I know that comment is going to get me knee deep in something but if im gonna drown it might as well be in shallow .............
Let me explain why I dont think it will make a difference.This is an example of what I have learned in volunteering with RSO.
Jane Doe is an RSO. Registers with the locality they are suppose to and in compliance. Still we don't have numbers on a monthly basis of how many are viewing the registry and who is actually viewing which is important overall to make certain there are no minipulation of numbers.
Jane moves into a new neighborhood and gets a postoffice box in neighboring town so no mail comes to her home. She gets a hello from a neighbor next door welcomming her into the neighborhood and says well Hi im Jane Snow. Even if the neighbor looked up the last name they wouldnt find her on the registery because she is known as Jane snow not Jane Doe.
Most RSO that I have been in contact with have another surname that they use when making new freinds or are asked there last name. Some do it for privacy and some for safety reasons.Once you are out of the legal system there are no laws that say you cant use a different name as long as you register with your legal name.
Next we have the photos taken that are updated yearly. Some are and some arent depending on how lazy the officer on duty is that day. There are some that are only updated on occasion.One of the guys in therapy changes his appearence every year before he has to register. He dyed his hair blonde this year grew a mustache and gained excessive weight. Added a pair of glass.Who is to say he cant do that? In a month or so he will look completely different.
What about the guy who dressed as a women when he went to get his photos taken and claimed he was in preop and was a women now?Court cant force you to choose what you want to be or look like.
Then we have the issue of 2 homes. There is never a follow up or visit and if so very scarce.Some have had 2 homes that they live in but the law requires only one being the main residence. Each state carries varying times that you must register if you stay there for long periods but who is to know.People come and go all the time . You can be registered in onw town but not the next.
There are so many ways that the system is manipulated that it doesnt work. A national registry does nothing to protect anyone. In fact I believe that the push to do this is because the states cant afford to handle the registry and want to put it back on the federal level. If I remember right the states were forced to do a registry in order to get federal funding for certain projects. If they didnt do a registry they got nothing. That is why it took so long for all the states to come in compliance.In the end thats what they got anyway from the federal goverment was nothing but short changed.
The other issue that states will be dealing with soon is how to keep offenders from communicationg with one another to devise plans to thwart the system. All laws are public and can be minipulated.There are those that work hard at finding the loop holes in this law as there are any other laws.So in the end what does a national registry prove?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (141608)
Message 141689 (In Reply to Message 141608)
Posted by orolan
on Dec 02, 2004 02:32 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
And who are the ones at highest risk to reoffend? It's the releasee from prison...
You're right there. No doubt persons released from prison make up the majority of the 5% who actually DO reoffend. What a huge number, eh?
...and don't a large percentage of their crimes occur after their release?
There is no evidence that released offenders have an escalation of offenses once released. On the contrary, most are caught within one victimization after release. These same persons of course are reported to have had tens and hundreds of victims in their lifetime prior to first getting caught.
...it gives the parole officer an idea...
Remember, the law says "unconditionally released". As in "time served. EOS. No parole.
It's simply a tool and will not prevent crimes plain and simple.
But it's supposed to prevent crimes. That's what its supporters claim, and that's why they want it. Dru would still be alive if this law had already existed, remember?
Doing a name search against a national data...
Funny you should mention that. You're in law enforcement. Do you know what the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) is? It promotes state participation in several programs, including the; National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), National Protection Order File (NPOF), and the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR), and a few other lesser information-sharing programs.
Of course, these programs are self-explanatory by their names. Our particular subject addresses the NSOR, about which the DOJ had this to say in its 2004 report:
NCHIP funds have assisted States in building sex offender registries and participating in the FBI's National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) which became operational in July 1999. As of September 2004, 50 States, Guam, the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia have provided nearly 360,000 records to the NSOR.
So why are we seeking passage of a law that is redundant? There is already a National Registry, and it's been around for 5 years already! And everybody is participating voluntarily!
For more information on NCHIP, some of it state-specific, check this out:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/nchip.htm
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (141608)
Message 141725 (In Reply to Message 141648)
Poet
Posted by orolan
on Dec 02, 2004 06:19 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
the states cant afford to handle the registry
Check out my link in my last post to the NCHIP document. There's a section that shows how much money each state has received over the past ten years, These NCHIP funds are what is actually used to pay for registeries.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (141648)
Message 141807 (In Reply to Message 141689)
Make Them Public
Posted by Navigatr1
on Dec 04, 2004 04:04 PM | Also by Navigatr1
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
orolan wrote:
Funny you should mention that. You're in law enforcement. Do you know what the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) is? It promotes state participation in several programs, including the; National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), National Protection Order File (NPOF), and the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR), and a few other lesser information-sharing programs.
I think they should just make all of these information sharing systems public. After all, they are just public information. The various offender registries that the states have were originally meant to be for law enforcement use only, and were later expanded so that the public could access them. So why not make all of these public for everyones protection? Don't I have a right to be able to do instant criminal background checks on all of my neighbors for free so that I can better protect myself?
--Navigatr1
CopWatch.com News Moderator
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (141689)
Message 142256 (In Reply to Message 141807)
IT wouldn't Have Helped Her
Posted by gfndresident
on Dec 11, 2004 07:45 PM | Also by gfndresident
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: North Dakota,
Country: United States |
orolan- you say that a national sex offender registry act wouldn't have helped Dru, but it would have. She didn't know the suspect's name because he was from Minnesota, right across the river. Because there was a state line in the way, residents of grand forks weren't made aware when he was let out of jail in May even though he was headed to a town 25 miles from Grand Forks. Also, it is said that his own family expressed concerns over letting him out of jail in May. He is a level 3 sex offender and currently in jail still on a very high bond that I don't remember the exact number. He asked for a high bond because he feared for his own safety.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (141807)
Message 142319 (In Reply to Message 142256)
Posted by orolan
on Dec 13, 2004 01:54 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
She didn't know the suspect's name because he was from Minnesota, right across the river.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Dru herself from Minnesota? Pequot Lakes, to be precise?
And if he was on a national registry (which he was, because his name is in the NSOR), what good would that have done? He was a total stranger, and could have just as well have been from Alabama as Minnesota as far as Dru was concerned.
Because there was a state line in the way, residents of grand forks weren't made aware when he was let out of jail...
And I guess nobody in Minnesota was notified either? Like Dru's parents?
The proposed "Dru's Law" makes zero mention of community notification across state lines, and says only that the AG of the releasing state has to be notified. Even if it did, how will anybody ever keep up with the hundreds of changes and releases on a weekly basis nationwide? And how on Earth will they remember all those new faces? And all the prior notifications in the world won't help when that releasee gets in the car and drives 200 miles across the state to some other city and does their deed.
So this will help how...?
I don't dispute that he was bad. After all, he was a two-time offender who had just done 23 years. Sounds an awful lot like Jesse Timmendequas to me. We don't need Dru's Law. We need judges with the cojones to sentence people like this to life without parole. But that would be too easy, and wouldn't unfairly affect thousands of others who are not at risk. And politicians don't get re-elected on the coattails of strict judges. They get re-elected on feel-good legislataion. Thank God the House has a bit of common sense and sees the fallacy and redundancy of Dru's Law.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (142256)
Message 143448 (In Reply to Message 141608)
ummmm
Posted by roccy
on Jan 08, 2005 06:25 AM | Also by roccy
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: North Dakota,
Country: United States |
And who are the ones at highest risk to reoffend? It's the releasee from prison
That is just the dumbest thing i ever heard. Of COURSE the releasee is highest risk to reoffend. He can't reoffend BEFORE he is caught, be cause there is not a first offense recorded yet. I think the sun is starting to fry your brain, dp1.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (141608)
Message 143521 (In Reply to Message 143448)
roccy
Posted by orolan
on Jan 09, 2005 03:11 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I think she is distinguishing between prison releasees and offenders who were simply given probation. Seems rather natural that a man who has been in prison for 20 years is going to have one thing on his mind when he gets out, and it ain't a Quarter Pounder from Mickey D's. Hence a rather heightened risk of reoffense.
And it isn't the sun, it's the wine;-))
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (143448)
Message 143555 (In Reply to Message 143521)
Posted by dp1
on Jan 09, 2005 08:01 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
And it isn't the sun, it's the wine;-))
Actually it's the RSO whine....you know the ones that whine about probation who never stepped foot in a real prison:-)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (143521)
Message 143567 (In Reply to Message 143555)
Posted by orolan
on Jan 10, 2005 02:28 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Speaking of......
Where's DTCDTT?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (143555)
Message 143573 (In Reply to Message 143567)
Posted by dp1
on Jan 10, 2005 04:08 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
She'll be back soon I hope...computer issues. When she gets back ask her about her new job....he he he he...she's got a new position now working with Community Control (house arrest). Talk about whining....the worst!
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (143567)
Message 143688 (In Reply to Message 143573)
Posted by orolan
on Jan 12, 2005 12:53 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I can't wait:-))
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (143573)
Thread
141534, admin, Nov 24, 2004 06:55 PM [Introduction]
141544, Navigatr1, Nov 25, 2004 04:19 AM [Should Take It Further]
141558, 1dadof5, Nov 26, 2004 08:10 AM
141568, orolan, Nov 26, 2004 07:05 PM
141587, 1dadof5, Nov 28, 2004 08:21 AM
141591, dp1, Nov 28, 2004 12:07 PM
141594, orolan, Nov 28, 2004 02:22 PM
141608, dp1, Nov 28, 2004 05:34 PM
141648, poetsdreamscape, Nov 30, 2004 02:21 AM [national registry?]
141725, orolan, Dec 02, 2004 06:19 PM [Poet]
141689, orolan, Dec 02, 2004 02:32 AM
141807, Navigatr1, Dec 04, 2004 04:04 PM [Make Them Public]
142256, gfndresident, Dec 11, 2004 07:45 PM [IT wouldn't Have Helpe...]
142319, orolan, Dec 13, 2004 01:54 AM
143448, roccy, Jan 08, 2005 06:25 AM [ummmm]
143521, orolan, Jan 09, 2005 03:11 PM [roccy]
143555, dp1, Jan 09, 2005 08:01 PM
143567, orolan, Jan 10, 2005 02:28 AM
143573, dp1, Jan 10, 2005 04:08 AM
143688, orolan, Jan 12, 2005 12:53 AM
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
