|
|
Forum: In the News
Thread (Discussion): [Palm Beach Post] Post sex offender data online to clarify individual risk - Great News
Message 158598
Introduction
Posted by admin
on Aug 13, 2005 02:54 PM | Also by admin
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: N/A |
Discuss the article Post sex offender data online to clarify individual risk, which appeared on Palm Beach Post on August 13, 2005.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 158762 (In Reply to Message 158598)
Posted by dp1
on Aug 15, 2005 05:12 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
It wouldn't be all that hard to post the details of the crime. DOC could easily do that for the offenders either in custody or on supervision. A lot of the others who were released still have files with DOC as well. It would be difficult to get the details for out of state offenders but it's worth the effort IMO.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (158598)
Message 158786 (In Reply to Message 158598)
Posted by Navigatr1
on Aug 15, 2005 03:02 PM | Also by Navigatr1
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
The only problem that I have with posting the details of the crime is that the official records aren't always accurate. Moreover, the whole story isn't necessarily there if the offender pleads the fifth amendment, and doesn't testify on his or her behalf at trial. We don't know how much the victim has emblelished their story because of this as we have only heard one side of the story.
If people really feel the need for the details, they can always write the clerk of the courts for the case file, and pay the required amount. They really need to read the whole case file to understand what all went on during the trial and any subsequent appeals.
--Navigatr1
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (158598)
Message 158815 (In Reply to Message 158786)
Posted by orolan
on Aug 15, 2005 04:58 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
In cases where the offender pleads, usually there is a stipulation of facts that is agreed upon by both sides. Sort of like "The defendant pleads guilty to the charge of sexual misconduct; to whit................." which goes on to spell out the acts that brought on the charge. That should suffice.
In my case the verbiage was "to whit, having a discussion of a frank sexual nature with a minor not the defendant's own child or ward."
Now if the registry said that, it might not fully explain the nature of that discussion. But it would at least tell people I didn't rape a 4 year-old, and it would point out right away that it was a non-contact offense.
Jury trials would be more difficult, but it seems the same could be done. Some statement of the facts and mitigating/aggravating circumstances could be arrived at for registry purposes.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (158786)
Message 158865 (In Reply to Message 158815)
Information needs to be correct!
Posted by ann018
on Aug 16, 2005 05:37 AM | Also by ann018
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I would agree if they would ensure the information is correct. My son's is incorrect and has been since everything was finalized 8 months ago. We are trying to get it corrected; the judge has signed the order. However, the FDLE has yet to make any correction. The worst part is if a background check is completed on my son, it looks even worse than the registry. He was involved in a non-contact crime, in his home, no one else…just the computer. If I were as unaware today, as I was 19 months ago I would believe my son molested someone (registry states L&L Battery). It only gets worse though. When we ran a background check so he would know what an employer would see...it states sex offense against child-fondling-lewd lascivious act presence child und 16 yoa solicitation. He never spoke, saw or touched anyone, much less someone under the age of 18. He is guilty of having a raunchy conversation with someone he thought was the father of 14 year old (a detective), sending 1 transmission containing 2 pictures of child porn and possessing a total of 15 pictures that when the forensics was complete added up to 29 females they believed to be under the age of 18.
What he did was wrong; he has owned his mistake and is paying the price. He has been through 2 psychological evaluations (one after he began counseling right after his arrest and one ordered as part of his sentencing). Both show he has not pedophilia, is highly unlikely to re-offend and is not a risk to anyone. However, if I were only reading the registry or the background check I would believe he had molested someone under the age of 16. When you have the two words sex offender associated with your name your life is going to be tough enough - I see no need for the FDLE to inflate the information. They are very quick to put the information up, but very slow to correct!
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (158815)
Message 158914 (In Reply to Message 158865)
Posted by orolan
on Aug 16, 2005 04:12 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Curious what his actual conviction offense is? I've never seen anybody convicted of L&L Battery for possessing porn. Battery requires physical activity. You can't have physical activity over the phone line, you can only 'talk'.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (158865)
Message 158925 (In Reply to Message 158865)
Posted by dp1
on Aug 16, 2005 04:25 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Ann, did DOC fix their database yet? DOC should use the exact charges on his certified copy of the probation order. If the FDLE website is wrong the PO needs to complete the registration form all over again and fax it immediately to FDLE. Let me know what I can do to facilitate correcting this conflict. Dp1
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (158865)
Message 158953 (In Reply to Message 158914)
Posted by ann018
on Aug 17, 2005 02:08 AM | Also by ann018
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Hi Orolan,
His amended order reads as follows for community control and probation:
Charge 1 – Internet electronic solicitation to commit lewd & lacivious battery
Charge 2 – Transmission child porn by electronic device or equipment
I believe part of the problem is that the arresting document only stated L&L Battery.
As I stated in my earlier post there was only a conversation with another adult (detective) about a 14-year old and one email sent with 2 pictures. It was somewhat complicated by the fact there were also 2 counties in FL involved - the one where the detective was and the one where my son lives.
I have sent dp1 a private message with the same information and his doc number. His information (second transmission charge has not been removed from their site either) and it still states "L/L BATTERY V 12-15 YO".
He has shown his PO the amended documents (signed 4/25/05 by the judge; his final sentencing hearing was 1/26/05). However, to my son's knowledge his PO did not complete or submit any new paperwork to the FDLE.
I have often wondered how many other SO's information may be incorrect and they are not aware. Especially if they can no longer have access to a computer or have someone that can run an "employer" background check. I have been in HR for many years and know the processes and have told my son from day one he will always have to be up front and honest when interviewing, which he has. However, if he tells them up front and then they run a background check that states fondling, etc. he doesn't have a rats chance in he--.
I'm hopeful that dp1 will be able to help.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (158914)
Message 158986 (In Reply to Message 158953)
Ann
Posted by dp1
on Aug 17, 2005 02:16 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Do you have the specific statutes he was convicted of? I'll need to check the database to make sure the exact statute is available. Sometimes if the exact statute isn't on the database the PO has to find one close to what he was charged with. So this is the first thing I need to check.
Secondly, when offenders have a sentence that includes 2 types of supervision the DOC website doubles everything. For example, lets say you were found guilty of 1)grand theft 2) Poss of cocaine and 3) Poss of porn and was sentenced to 2 years house arrest followed by 10 years probation. The PO has to enter the house arrest sentence in their computer with a start and stop date then they have to enter the probation sentence with the start and stop date. So when that information flows over to the website it looks like this:
grand theft - 2 years
poss of cocaine - 2 years
poss of porn - 2 years
grand theft - 10 years
poss of cocaine - 10 years
poss of porn - 10 years
So instead of 3 charges and a 12 year sentence it looks like 6 charges. But wait, it gets better. If he violates his house arrest, gets revoked and gets placed back on again with the same sentence it'll look like this:
grand theft - 2 years
poss of cocaine - 2 years
poss of porn - 2 years
grand theft - 10 years
poss of cocaine - 10 years
poss of porn - 10 years
grand theft - 2 years
poss of cocaine - 2 years
poss of porn - 2 years
grand theft - 10 years
poss of cocaine - 10 years
poss of porn - 10 years
So now he has 12 charges. Unbelievable!
Last problem. Ok, all this DOC stuff has nothing to do with the FDLE flyer having the wrong qualifying offense. It seems to me that FDLE would not be willing to change that until DOC gets on the ball. So, let's first find out the exact statute he was sentenced on and whether the DOC database can actually be fixed. Then we'll move on the FDLE corrections.
I will be back.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (158953)
Message 159073 (In Reply to Message 158953)
Ann
Posted by dp1
on Aug 18, 2005 05:32 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I believe part of the problem is that the arresting document only stated L&L Battery.
I believe the problem is that the PO used the wrong offense code. The statute for Internet electronic solicitation to commit lewd & lacivious battery is 847.0135(3) which is offense code 1151. If offense code 1151 was input his charge on the DOC website would read "Lewdness INTRNET/F.S.794,800,827". When they updated the applicable statute 800.04(4) they used offense code 3621 which is the L&L Battery offense. That may have been correct at the time assuming the orders of probation were not accurate. Now that the Court corrected his orders with the Internet charge all they have to do is go in there and change 3621 to 1151on each sentence for all counts. It should read correctly after that. Does this sound accurate according to his Court papers?
The PO may not be aware that the offense code drives the offense description in the computer. Ann I wish I was in your county. I can't update this for you. But, at least you know it's a simple fix. (at least I hope so - it's not easy to troubleshoot without getting into the system and playing around with it).
After the DOC computer is squirt away the local Sheriff's office should have no problems reregistering your son with the correct qualifying offenses if the PO doesn't volunteer to pick up the phone and call the FDLE help desk to fix it.
I hope this helps.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (158953)
Message 159998 (In Reply to Message 159073)
Great News
Posted by dp1
on Aug 28, 2005 11:19 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Ann,
I see that the correct offense code corrected the DOC database and the FDLE flyer as well. Good job.
Now they just need to tighten up on St. Lucie Count 2. It's showing like he had 2 counts (cts 2&3) because of the incorrect way they entered the quasi-split sentence; community control followed by probation. That's an easy fix as well. The auditors usually catch stuff
like that so it's best for the PO to fix it sooner rather than later.
Dp1
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159073)
Thread
158598, admin, Aug 13, 2005 02:54 PM [Introduction]
158762, dp1, Aug 15, 2005 05:12 AM
158786, Navigatr1, Aug 15, 2005 03:02 PM
158815, orolan, Aug 15, 2005 04:58 PM
158865, ann018, Aug 16, 2005 05:37 AM [Information needs to be correct!]
158914, orolan, Aug 16, 2005 04:12 PM
158953, ann018, Aug 17, 2005 02:08 AM
158986, dp1, Aug 17, 2005 02:16 PM [Ann]
159073, dp1, Aug 18, 2005 05:32 AM [Ann]
159998, dp1, Aug 28, 2005 11:19 PM [Great News]
158925, dp1, Aug 16, 2005 04:25 PM
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
