Topic: Sex Offenders
started by: cheeba
Posted by cheeba on Jan. 23 2006,12:00 pm
< http://www12.familywatchdog.us/ >Neat site. All of them were previously in Iowa.
Posted by Lynn on Jan. 24 2006,10:58 am
To have 4 registered sex offenders in our town is a little unnerving. Not that we couldn't have some of these kinds come under the radar and we just don't know about them.Thanks Cheeba for putting up the link to that site.
I am informing my family members about these people.
Posted by The Game on Jan. 24 2006,2:05 pm
Its the subject of todays rant, and I also spoke to State Rep Dan today about the issue. I'll keep you posted.
Posted by The Game on Jan. 24 2006,4:47 pm
The rant went well and there were lots of calls after. If you missed it, you can hear it here, just pick< Rons Rant >
Posted by Replicant on Jan. 24 2006,4:59 pm
Not just Albert Lea...One offender listed in Clarks Grove, zip 56016
Two in Emmons, zip 56029 (one shows up as non-mappable)
Posted by The Game on Jan. 24 2006,5:04 pm
Yes I looked around the county and also checked over in Austin and Rochester just to see for comparison sake. We have more 
Posted by Wolfie on Jan. 24 2006,7:09 pm
Just playing devils advocate here so put down the rifle. Just because someone is listed as a sex offender doesnt mean they are a rapist or child molester. As pointed out recently on a TV show you can end up of the sex offender list for a prositution charge(payer or payee). And before anyone says it I have never been in trouble with the law, I do NOT have any kind of criminal record.
Posted by Newbie on Jan. 24 2006,7:13 pm
Wolfie that is true. If you look on that website it says why they were convicted.
Posted by allergic to bogus on Jan. 24 2006,9:43 pm
As I stated in another post, one of these offenders was working out at a local restaurant just a month ago and thanks to a coworker of a friend....he was discovered on that website and brought to the managers attention. He was doing magic tricks and my friend and party thought he was pretty darn good at it. Reflecting on it later, she stated "Of course he was good, who is mesmerized by magic more than a child!". Pretty scary stuff.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 24 2006,9:49 pm
Good Rant Ron. Let's get the Rock and Roll Army and the County Cowboys on this and everyone contact your Representative and let them know this need Priority Legislation before Iowa dumps all its predators on our doors. Minnesota should follow Iowa's Lead Of No Tolerance.
Posted by steph on Jan. 25 2006,8:59 am
Awesome Rant Ron!! Keep it up and keep the pressure on!! Do you have any Idea how many little kids walk up and down Garfield to get to school and back? It's insane and very scary! I didn't think they were allowed to live near schools or Daycares?
Posted by opal's gold on Jan. 25 2006,9:16 am
did anyone notice that they are not sex offenders in the mankato area? seems a little strange that we have four of them in albert lea and a larger city like mankato has none.:rock:
Posted by Replicant on Jan. 25 2006,10:17 am
| Quote (allergic to bogus @ Jan. 24 2006,9:43pm) |
| As I stated in another post, one of these offenders was working out at a local restaurant just a month ago and thanks to a coworker of a friend....he was discovered on that website and brought to the managers attention. He was doing magic tricks and my friend and party thought he was pretty darn good at it. Reflecting on it later, she stated "Of course he was good, who is mesmerized by magic more than a child!". Pretty scary stuff. |
This the one?
< Magician article >
< Amazing Mark >
Looks like this guy was able to fly under a lot of people's radar.
Posted by ICU812 on Jan. 25 2006,10:36 am
Look at the picture on the bottom link in post above and look at the picture of the person on the sex offender list with the middle name Mark. 
Posted by The Coach on Jan. 25 2006,10:52 am
Creepy. We had that guy perform at our table there once last fall. Glad to hear they got rid of him Allergic.
Posted by ICU812 on Jan. 25 2006,10:53 am
| Quote (Wolfie @ Jan. 24 2006,7:09pm) |
| Just playing devils advocate here so put down the rifle. Just because someone is listed as a sex offender doesnt mean they are a rapist or child molester. As pointed out recently on a TV show you can end up of the sex offender list for a prositution charge(payer or payee). And before anyone says it I have never been in trouble with the law, I do NOT have any kind of criminal record. |
I haven't noticed many prostitutes that are age 0-13.
Posted by Replicant on Jan. 25 2006,11:25 am
| Quote (ICU812 @ Jan. 25 2006,10:36am) |
| Look at the picture on the bottom link in post above and look at the picture of the person on the sex offender list with the middle name Mark. |
Same PO Box, Albert Lea. Same guy.
Cheeba, thanks for posting this site, and also to Mr. Cook for bringing it up in public at the council meeting. The citizens again do what government failed to do.
Geo, I know you said you had planned to bring it up too at the council meeting, so credit to you too.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 25 2006,12:17 pm
John and I spoke before the meeting, as he is better and more articualte in public speaking, and has a child walking down the street daily we did a team effort he spoke and I supplied the council with printouts for each of the members, of the offenders.< MAGICIAN WEBSITE >
Posted by steph on Jan. 25 2006,12:34 pm
Still wondering if anyone knows how these people can live so close to schools?
Posted by ICU812 on Jan. 25 2006,12:39 pm
| Quote (steph @ Jan. 25 2006,12:34pm) |
| Still wondering if anyone knows how these people can live so close to schools? |
Has something to do with the fact that they came from Iowa and the that Iowa state law does not have to inform other states that they are sex offenders.
| Quote |
| Police Chief Winkels responded to Mr. Cook’s question noting that Minnesota laws differ from Iowa laws in that Iowa classifies all sexual offenders together and Minnesota has three levels. Level 3 convictions require the neighborhoods be notified, level 2 permits notification and level 1 prevents notification. He also stated that State Statutes prevent the Police Department from discussing Iowa convictions publicly. < Minutes > |
Posted by steph on Jan. 25 2006,12:43 pm
Well does the city of AL take the time or effort to keep tabs on the sick freaks that we so happily welcome?
Posted by steph on Jan. 25 2006,12:45 pm
anyone have a email address for rep dan or anyone else we can contact about this
Posted by The Game on Jan. 25 2006,12:51 pm
That is exactly why I am working with Rep Dan to try to have some legislation drafted to send to the floor. Minnesota should have total disclosure much like IA. We shouldn't have to protect ourselves. As a parent I want to know when any class of child sex offender comes into the area that I live. I'm also in contact with other politicians to see if the law cant be changed or amended. Great platform to run on for upcoming elections.
Posted by steph on Jan. 25 2006,12:57 pm
Game... Thanks for making a great start on this. Hope this one don't die out before something gets done about it. I also hope you rant about this a bit more. Hopefully some of the sick freaks are listening.
Posted by cheeba on Jan. 25 2006,1:18 pm
I am glad you all take this as seiously as I do. It makes me just ill. there are two sex offenders living in the same house A block and two houses awayfrom the school! If you look at that site more closely there two at the Garfield address. Making it FIVE sex offenders in our Albert Lea area. Recently I was chatting with a co-worker and she was telling me a story about an elderly man that lives on 3rd ave. West that cons parents into letting him Babysit for free and then touches them. Some of the parents found out about this but didn't want to give up free sitter!!!! They said their child was lying. This man is not a registered sex offender because he served his time before they had the registry list. ALPD wouldn't do anything about this man except tell him not to have contact with the children. He had been seen at Sibley school walking around during recess looking up little girls dresses. Still the ALPD wouldn't do anything. This incident that was spoken of was about 4-5 years ago but still!!!!!
The principle at that time was contacted and he said the man would have be be caught in the act by staff. Staff? why? arn't they out their during recess? Are they not watching?
I am not scared to say if I caught someone doing this to my child I would shoot him and I hope you all would visit me in prison. I would go proudly to get at least one sicko off the streets.
Posted by Replicant on Jan. 25 2006,2:43 pm
| Quote (REPOMAN @ Jan. 25 2006,12:22pm) |
| I told him that some people are probably concerned about the nature of his criminal convictions - and the fact that he is in the business of entertaining small children with magic tricks... |
Interesting that on his website he doesn't list "birthday parties" as suggested events for his services. Perhaps he was prevented from doing so under whatever terms he was released.
Wonder how many parties he booked from his gig at the restaurant?
Posted by Scurvy Dog on Jan. 25 2006,2:48 pm
| Quote (Replicant @ Jan. 25 2006,2:43pm) |
| Interesting that on his website he doesn't list "birthday parties" as suggested events for his services. Perhaps he was prevented from doing so under whatever terms he was released. Wonder how many parties he booked from his gig at Applebee's? |
I thought about that, too. I figured that if people saw his site, in their mind they would think magic = birthday party, and he wouldn't even have to say it. Almost like he was trolling.
Creepy.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 25 2006,3:02 pm
I knew a magician once who made the food inventory disappear at Diegos in Kansas City. 
Posted by Wareagle11B on Jan. 25 2006,3:12 pm
KAAL Channel 6 will be running an interview that I just finished on the 6 p.m. Newscast. I hope you will all watch and join in the fight to get MN's laws changed.
Posted by repdan on Jan. 25 2006,4:07 pm
Thanks Ron for the heads up. I am the first to admit when I don't know something, so in this case, I am seeking information. I hope the goal here is to keep kids safe and not change for the sake of change.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 25 2006,4:20 pm
I have contacted Patty Wetterling and Sue Jeffers. We Need to contact The governors office and the State Attorney Generals Office. Everyone Do Your Part. Don't let mine, Ron and Johns voice be the only ones voicing concern.
Mailing Address: Office of the Governor
130 State Capitol
75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
Telephone: (651) 296-3391
(800) 657-3717
Facsimile: (651) 296-2089
E-mail: tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 25 2006,4:37 pm
| Quote |
| Mr. Gillespie, I couldn't agree with you more, violent criminals and sex offenders belong in jail and for a very long time. I could not open the article and would like more information about Iowa's laws which now make our state a haven for these criminals. I have a level three sex offender living down the street from two schools in our neighborhood. Any additional information would be appreciated and you can be sure longer sentencing for all violent criminals would be a priority for me as governor. We must take back our neighborhoods. Thanks, Sue Jeffers |
I corrected the link for her.
Posted by Replicant on Jan. 25 2006,4:46 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Jan. 25 2006,4:07pm) |
| I hope the goal here is to keep kids safe and not change for the sake of change. |
Why would you even suggest the motive would be anything other than the safety of our children? Your statement disappoints me, as if you're minimizing this as a problem.
Here we have a bordering state that is seemingly shipping their sex offenders to us, and we as citizens can't depend on our government or safety officials to tell us, apparently because their hands are tied.
What I don't get is why this information is freely available on the Family Watchdog website (and others I would guess), but no one can tell us this in public?
Posted by Replicant on Jan. 25 2006,4:54 pm
Amazingly, the Iowa Sex Offender Registry lists this guy, but not Minnesota's. I know, it's because he's not a Level 3 offender. < Iowa Sex Offender Listing >Here is the < Iowa Sex Offender Home Page >.
Also < Minnesota Level 3 Sex Offender Search >. (Nobody listed in Albert Lea - there was one but he died a while back.)
Finally, here's the Minnesota Page at < Sexcriminals.com. > Seems to have some good information.
Posted by The Game on Jan. 25 2006,4:54 pm
First off a bit of credit where credit is due, Cheeba, you rock hon and if it wasn't for the posting of the link this may have been able to fly under the radar longer than it has. Geo thanks for mentioning it to me at Eddies and Wareagle you have guts for bring this up to the city and I am glad that the chief was there to talk about the law enforcement side. Rep Dan has been very gracious with his time and my phone calls. This isn't about making the lives of those who have served their time any more difficult, but it IS about protection our children. Wareagle made that point right off the bat at the meeting. I do want to see a change in the way people can better protect their family from the individuals that are out there and may repeat an offense. Fortunately we have no level 3 offenders in Albert Lea. What we don't know is how many level 2 or 1 offenders are living with us. All I want is more disclosure to protect our children and those that live in our community. Great job by all! I'm very proud of all of you.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Jan. 25 2006,4:56 pm
| Quote (Replicant @ Jan. 25 2006,4:46pm) |
| What I don't get is why this information is freely available on the Family Watchdog website (and others I would guess), but no one can tell us this in public? |
What I am curious about Replicant is why, after 2 very high profile cases in the past 5 - 7 years, has MN allowed it's laws to be so lax and why the State Government hasn't gotten tougher on criminals like these? As for other offenders in the county I have been told that there are over 50 convicted Sexual Offenders living in Freeborn county. Funny things is is that only the 5 from Iowa made the Watchdog list. Mayhaps MN needs a swift kick for a wakeup call on this issue and preferably not from another incident.
Posted by allergic to bogus on Jan. 25 2006,4:58 pm
Good causes. Ironically, a few months ago, they reported on KAAL news about this new law being inacted and My immediate response was "great now all the sex offenders have to do is move on this side of the state border!" Lo and behold. Glad to see that we are moving in a positive manner for the safety of our children, NO other reason and a little miffed at the comment about change for the sake of change, quite honestly.
Posted by The Game on Jan. 25 2006,4:58 pm
Rep, From what I understand in Iowa is that any individual convicted of a criminal offense against a minor, sexual exploitation or a sexually violent crime has to register. MN is broken down into a few catagories with only level 3 being under the microscope. That said, who knows how many level one and 2's live here and may be a threat to our kids.
Posted by Replicant on Jan. 25 2006,5:19 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Jan. 25 2006,4:56pm) |
| As for other offenders in the county I have been told that there are over 50 convicted Sexual Offenders living in Freeborn county. Funny things is is that only the 5 from Iowa made the Watchdog list. Mayhaps MN needs a swift kick for a wakeup call on this issue and preferably not from another incident. |
I searched the Iowa site using "56007" zip code and the same 5 showed up as at Family Watchdog. I haven't tried the other county zip codes, but if I find any will post them.
Posted by REPOMAN on Jan. 25 2006,5:41 pm
| Quote (GEOKOFF @ Jan. 25 2006,4:20pm) |
| I have contacted Patty Wetterling and Sue Jeffers. |
I get Patty Wetterling - but Sue Jeffers...
why don't you contact someone that is in a position to do something - instead of the black lung advocate...
she is now going to become a self-promoting huckster looking for any issue to latch onto as though she has any credibility...
the one issue that she has associated herself with has been the smoking issue - PERIOD...
F her...
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 25 2006,5:49 pm
As she is running for Governor it will pressure other candidates to get tough on this issue. Sue is a pistol when she gets focused on an issue.
Posted by bearcare on Jan. 25 2006,6:35 pm
I checked out the Amazing Mark website. It's been taken down due to recent security concerns.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 25 2006,8:04 pm
Just a thought. Since Albert Lea has laws regulating where people can ride bikes why can't they pass laws regulating where sex offenders can live? A city in New Jersey passed a law that made it against the law for convicted sex offenders to live within 2,500 feet of any school, park, playground, day-care centers, roller rinks, movie theaters and amusement parks. Now if a city in New Jersey can stop convicted sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a movie theater, you think the city of Albert Lea could stop two convicted sex offenders from living within 1,584 of an elementary school?
Posted by repdan on Jan. 25 2006,9:03 pm
First, let me say this, I am not so sure I would trade the Minnesota program for the one in Iowa. It would cost less however. They lump all offenders together and post them and then they are done. So in Iowa someone who gets caught taking a pee in the alley is right up there with the person who rapes a child. This may not be too big of a problem for us since the numbers of 1,2 and 3 are small. There are 300 level 1 in the state over 800 level 2 and thousands of level 1. 80% of the level 2 and 3 offenders live in MPLS, St. Paul or Duluth, if 1,2,and 3 were all posted the power and effect of being posted would go way down.
Having said all that, Ron gave me a good idea and I am going to try to get someone from the BCA and Corrections down here to hold a meeting. Just because I think we have a better system, that does not mean it can't be improved.
I spoke today with a friend who works in corrections, she was a homicide officer and also worked in the sex crimes dept of the Minneapolis police dept before taking the state job. It sounds like the DOC is going to push to list the level 2 and 3.
I should also point out the Iowa site deals only with kids, in Minnesota the site deals with all sexual predators.
FYI the Watchdog site is just directing you to the US Dept of Justice web site. It is public information.
Posted by repdan on Jan. 25 2006,9:33 pm
| Quote (Replicant @ Jan. 25 2006,4:46pm) | ||
Why would you even suggest the motive would be anything other than the safety of our children? Your statement disappoints me, as if you're minimizing this as a problem. Here we have a bordering state that is seemingly shipping their sex offenders to us, and we as citizens can't depend on our government or safety officials to tell us, apparently because their hands are tied. What I don't get is why this information is freely available on the Family Watchdog website (and others I would guess), but no one can tell us this in public? |
Sorry you are disapointed that I think we should base public policy on facts. Look at some of the posts including yours. If the Iowa site was making them leave the state, there would be more in Austin and Rochester. Don't you think some of our level one and level tow offenders have moved to Iowa? I am not sure, but without having the information I would not guess either.
Next you assume since the family watchdog had the info that it was not in the public somewhere, yet they just link to the Federal DOJ site and make a few bucks in the process.
You may trade the Iowa system for ours, but after talking to a ALHS grad who was a Minneapolis homicde and sex crime cop I would not. Maybe you are an expert in this area and have more information then I do but since I am not an expert in the field I need to get information before demanding change.
Posted by repdan on Jan. 25 2006,9:35 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Jan. 25 2006,4:56pm) | ||
What I am curious about Replicant is why, after 2 very high profile cases in the past 5 - 7 years, has MN allowed it's laws to be so lax and why the State Government hasn't gotten tougher on criminals like these? As for other offenders in the county I have been told that there are over 50 convicted Sexual Offenders living in Freeborn county. Funny things is is that only the 5 from Iowa made the Watchdog list. Mayhaps MN needs a swift kick for a wakeup call on this issue and preferably not from another incident. |
We made several changes last year including life without parole for the worst offenses. But the group of people we are talking about here have already been through the system and we can't re-sentence them.
Posted by menace616 on Jan. 25 2006,10:03 pm
| Quote (Wolfie @ Jan. 24 2006,7:09pm) |
| Just playing devils advocate here so put down the rifle. Just because someone is listed as a sex offender doesnt mean they are a rapist or child molester. As pointed out recently on a TV show you can end up of the sex offender list for a prositution charge(payer or payee). And before anyone says it I have never been in trouble with the law, I do NOT have any kind of criminal record. |
All sex offenders are predators, PERIOD!! Don't try to minimize the impact that these low lifes have on society.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Jan. 25 2006,11:03 pm
I'd agree, a sex offense is a sex offense.I wouldn't go as far as lumping other non sexual crimes together with sexual crimes, but I think it would be a good idea to look at additional options to help keep offenders further away from children.
Posted by Replicant on Jan. 25 2006,11:18 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Jan. 25 2006,9:33pm) | ||||
Sorry you are disapointed that I think we should base public policy on facts. Look at some of the posts including yours. If the Iowa site was making them leave the state, there would be more in Austin and Rochester. Don't you think some of our level one and level tow offenders have moved to Iowa? I am not sure, but without having the information I would not guess either. Next you assume since the family watchdog had the info that it was not in the public somewhere, yet they just link to the Federal DOJ site and make a few bucks in the process. You may trade the Iowa system for ours, but after talking to a ALHS grad who was a Minneapolis homicde and sex crime cop I would not. Maybe you are an expert in this area and have more information then I do but since I am not an expert in the field I need to get information before demanding change. |
A little early in the session to be so testy isn't it Dan? I took issue with your flip statement about change for the sake of change, and you've got me saying all kinds of things I didn't say. For a guy with a reputation to be a power broker between the IR and DFL, seems like a pretty thin skin.
Where did I say public policy should not be based on facts? In fact, it is I who posted links to factual information freely available from both Iowa and Minnesota's sexual offender websites. To find out about an offender living in Albert Lea, Minnesota, I had to go to Iowa's website, and a 3rd party website (Family Watchdog) to get information. What's wrong with that picture?
Where did I say Iowa makes them leave the state? I said SEEMINGLY, meaning it was odd that of 5 offenders listed in Albert Lea, all 5 came from Iowa. I wasn't the first to comment on that.
Where did I say any of Minnesota's offenders have not moved to Iowa or other states? I didn't make any conjectures about it, but then I'm concerned about the offenders living here and how do I find out about them.
Where did I assume that the Family Watchdog did not get their information from public information? By its nature, convictions ARE public information. I realize they get their information from public records somewhere, that is why I posted links to Minnesota's and Iowa's registries. I'm not sure if Family Watchdog makes a few bucks, it didn't cost me or anyone else anything to look this up on their site.
You mention the DOJ website which is the < National Sex Offender Public Registry >. Guess what, they get their information from the state sites too, here's a statement copied directly from the NSOPR site:
| Quote |
| The criteria for searching are limited to what each individual state may provide. Also, because information is hosted by each state and not by the federal government, search results should be verified by the user in the state where the information is posted. Users are advised to log on to pertinent state web sites for further information and/or guidance, as appropriate. |
Where did I say I would trade Iowa's system for ours? I made no such claim, and again I posted links to information about both states, including another 3rd party site (sexcrimes.com) that appears to summarize information about all states, in order to take a better look.
Where did I demand change without facts? I merely asked a question why can't local officials discuss sex offenders living amongst us, but have to find out the information is freely available, if you look for it. The point is, why did a citizen have to go look for it? Why can't we be told outright? Chief Winkels himself said their hands were tied, that they could not do community notification on these "unclassified" offenders, most of whose victims were under 13 years of age. That's not taking a leak in an alley.
No, I am no expert on sexual offenders, but in a few minutes of searching I provided more information than you did, instead of throwing out
| Quote (repdan @ Jan. 25 2006,4:07pm) |
| I hope the goal here is to keep kids safe and not change for the sake of change. |
Now I'm not looking to get in a p1ssing match with you, I've been a supporter, but I'll again say I was disappointed by your statement which started this discussion. If you wish to clarify what you meant, great. Then, by all means, get whatever facts you need to decide if something could be done better. And please do let us know what you discover.
Posted by cheeba on Jan. 25 2006,11:31 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Jan. 25 2006,3:12pm) |
| KAAL Channel 6 will be running an interview that I just finished on the 6 p.m. Newscast. I hope you will all watch and join in the fight to get MN's laws changed. |
< http://www.6newsfirst.com/article/view/95719/ >
Way to go!!!
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 25 2006,11:33 pm
This information is off the Bureau of Justice website:"Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders."
Using these percentages and statistics that means 2 of the 5 sex offenders living in Albert Lea will committ a crime again. Lets hope and pray that the 2 sex offenders that commit a crime are not the 2 that live a block and a half from Hawthorne. I will add that the number is probably alot more than 5 sex offenders living in Albert Lea but the state of Minnesota does not allow the public to have sufficient information on the residency status of child molesting sex offenders to protect their children.
Posted by repdan on Jan. 26 2006,2:11 am
| Quote (Replicant @ Jan. 25 2006,4:46pm) |
| What I don't get is why this information is freely available on the Family Watchdog website (and others I would guess), but no one can tell us this in public? Your Quote Where did I say Iowa makes them leave the state? I said SEEMINGLY, meaning it was odd that of 5 offenders listed in Albert Lea, all 5 came from Iowa. I wasn't the first to comment on that. Your right, you were not the first to comment on that, that does not make it right and while I understand why people would make that connection it does not mean it is right. For the record, the Iowa site lists offenses against kids leaving off the sexual assults against others and also includes non sex crimes. Maybe this is what we want but it should be a thoughful decision. |
Testy...not really. And yes, my concern is that in the legislative process I see change for the sake of change and not to improve the situation.
Read your post, "no one can tell us this in public". Yet the watchdog site is usinig the DOJ information, and I believe there are a few other sites that do the same thing. Fine by me that does not mean "no one can tell us this in public."
Thanks for being a supporter, at least in the past.
And if I get thin skined it is because sometimes just asking questions draws fire in this game.
Posted by repdan on Jan. 26 2006,2:23 am
| Quote (Replicant @ Jan. 25 2006,11:18pm) |
| Where did I say Iowa makes them leave the state? I said SEEMINGLY, meaning it was odd that of 5 offenders listed in Albert Lea, all 5 came from Iowa. I wasn't the first to comment on that. |
If we are going to split hairs, you are right you said seemingly and I said you MAY trade the Minnesota system for the Iowa system.
Your quote
That's not taking a leak in an alley.
Are you sure? I am not, my understanding is that in Minnesota if we used the same stadard as Iowa if you took the leak in the alley you could end up there. There is a big difference between someone taking a leak and some wack job exposing himself to kids, I am not sure we are well served by posting them both on the site.
Posted by repdan on Jan. 26 2006,2:52 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Jan. 25 2006,11:33pm) |
| This information is off the Bureau of Justice website: "Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders." Using these percentages and statistics that means 2 of the 5 sex offenders living in Albert Lea will committ a crime again. Lets hope and pray that the 2 sex offenders that commit a crime are not the 2 that live a block and a half from Hawthorne. I will add that the number is probably alot more than 5 sex offenders living in Albert Lea but the state of Minnesota does not allow the public to have sufficient information on the residency status of child molesting sex offenders to protect their children. |
This is the reason that Minnesota uses the level system. Level 3 offenders are most likely to offend, then the level 2 and least likely are the level ones.
The good news is, that because of the changes we made last year there will be fewer level 3 offenders on the street. In the short run, more of them will be commited in places like St. Peter and Moose Lake (those in the system now) and newly convicted will spend more time in Stillwater before being moved to St. Peter (costs less to keep them in Stillwater).
Posted by Liberal on Jan. 26 2006,9:50 am
| Quote |
Are you sure? I am not, my understanding is that in Minnesota if we used the same stadard as Iowa if you took the leak in the alley you could end up there. There is a big difference between someone taking a leak and some wack job exposing himself to kids, I am not sure we are well served by posting them both on the site. |
Repdan is right, and reactionary legislation in Minnesota won't help the Iowa sex offender situation.
As crazy as this seems when I was in the Army in military police school, two guys in my platoon stopped to take a leak walking back to the barracks from the bar on a Saturday night. A post MP drove by and saw them and arrested them both and charged them with indecent exposure. I don't remember if they had much of a fine but they prosecuted them under state law, so they were both considered sex offenders for the rest of their lives in some states, and then they prosecuted them under the UCMJ so that they were reclassified to truck drivers and that ended any chance they had to make the military a career.
So under the Iowa system these guys would both be considered sex offenders and be on the list with the worst of the lot, when there is virtually no chance either of them would ever commit another "sex crime". All that does is takes the focus off the really dangerous ones.
Personally I think the Iowa system is broken and needs to be fixed and I don't think we can fix their broken system with legislation in Minnesota.
Posted by TameThaTane on Jan. 26 2006,9:56 am
They don't call it the "Iowa Taliban " for nothing!
Posted by Wareagle11B on Jan. 26 2006,4:34 pm
| Quote (cheeba @ Jan. 25 2006,11:31pm) |
| Way to go!!! |
Actually the thanks goes to you as well Cheeba. It was you who got this ball rolling by posting that link and I just took it like any good running back would and ran. Where it goes from here remains to be seen.
If what I have been told is true with over 50 sex offenders living in the County then all I want to know is why we cannot be told when they move into our neighborhood or so close to a school? Dan I am not wishing for change just for the sake of change nor do I wish to have a similar system to what Iowa has. What I would like to see is disclosure on who has been convicted of a sexual offense against CHILDREN. I personally believe that these 2 who live close to Hawthorne should be classified as the worst of the lot due to the fact that the crime was committed against 2 very young girls. Both committed a sexual act against a girl who was under 13 years old at the time. To me that makes them very bad people. This in no way is meant to say that had the victims been older I would not feel the same way. Living so close to a school only provides them with an opportunity to reoffend. Nobody can guarantee me 100% that one, if not both, of these men will not reoffend. It is an educated guess given by people trained in giving good guesses and then praying that they are right. They simply cannot know 100% what is in a persons mind. My fiance' stated it quite well when she compared this issue to an alcoholic. The desire to begin drinking again is always going to be there so why would a recovering alcoholic want to live anywhere near a bar. The same principle applies here in that the temptation to reoffend is always going to remain with these 3 men, including the one near Halverson, and being so close to an elementary school doesn't diminish that chance to reoffend. Look at the magician. Do you think anybody knew he was a convicted sex offender before this whole thing got rolling? Until the members of this forum took the time to investigate nobody would have known and for that I thank my fellow posters. I would also like to let everybody know that I mentioned this forum at least 2X during my interview with KAAL and the guy running the camera knew me under my old name of OEF_Soldier so even KAAL pays some attention to this forum.
All I wish to have done through the state is have a law passed where people such as this cannot reside so close to places where the likelyhood of them reoffending is greatly increased. That's all I want because then I know that when my daughter is walking down Garfield I won't have to wonder if these 2 men are watching her or any other kids as they walk to or from school. Dan I would be very happy to take part in any sessions you have on this subject and I hope you are open to any new ideas anybody may have on this issue.
Posted by repdan on Jan. 26 2006,4:40 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Jan. 26 2006,4:34pm) | ||
Actually the thanks goes to you as well Cheeba. It was you who got this ball rolling by posting that link and I just took it like any good running back would and ran. Where it goes from here remains to be seen. If what I have been told is true with over 50 sex offenders living in the County then all I want to know is why we cannot be told when they move into our neighborhood or so close to a school? Dan I am not wishing for change just for the sake of change nor do I wish to have a similar system to what Iowa has. What I would like to see is disclosure on who has been convicted of a sexual offense against CHILDREN. I personally believe that these 2 who live close to Hawthorne should be classified as the worst of the lot due to the fact that the crime was committed against 2 very young girls. Both committed a sexual act against a girl who was under 13 years old at the time. To me that makes them very bad people. This in no way is meant to say that had the victims been older I would not feel the same way. Living so close to a school only provides them with an opportunity to reoffend. Nobody can guarantee me 100% that one, if not both, of these men will not reoffend. It is an educated guess given by people trained in giving good guesses and then praying that they are right. They simply cannot know 100% what is in a persons mind. My fiance' stated it quite well when she compared this issue to an alcoholic. The desire to begin drinking again is always going to be there so why would a recovering alcoholic want to live anywhere near a bar. The same principle applies here in that the temptation to reoffend is always going to remain with these 3 men, including the one near Halverson, and being so close to an elementary school doesn't diminish that chance to reoffend. Look at the magician. Do you think anybody knew he was a convicted sex offender before this whole thing got rolling? Until the members of this forum took the time to investigate nobody would have known and for that I thank my fellow posters. I would also like to let everybody know that I mentioned this forum at least 2X during my interview with KAAL and the guy running the camera knew me under my old name of OEF_Soldier so even KAAL pays some attention to this forum. All I wish to have done through the state is have a law passed where people such as this cannot reside so close to places where the likelyhood of them reoffending is greatly increased. That's all I want because then I know that when my daughter is walking down Garfield I won't have to wonder if these 2 men are watching her or any other kids as they walk to or from school. Dan I would be very happy to take part in any sessions you have on this subject and I hope you are open to any new ideas anybody may have on this issue. |
Always open to making something better. I must have missed the point of some of the posts here. I thought people thought the Iowa system was better. Keep in mind we are looking at a statewide system and if you post level ones, the impact will be near zero in Minneapolis and St. Paul since that is where most of them live.
I am hoping to get the BCA to come down and put on an informational hearing to explain our program and look for ways to improve it.
You have more information on the Iowa guys then I do the web site does not have enough detail. Do you know how much time they got and when they were released?
Posted by Newbie on Jan. 26 2006,5:21 pm
Have any of you talked to staff at Hawthorne so that they could watch the children closer while they are on the playground?
Posted by Replicant on Jan. 26 2006,5:31 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Jan. 26 2006,4:40pm) |
| Always open to making something better. I must have missed the point of some of the posts here. I thought people thought the Iowa system was better. Keep in mind we are looking at a statewide system and if you post level ones, the impact will be near zero in Minneapolis and St. Paul since that is where most of them live. I am hoping to get the BCA to come down and put on an informational hearing to explain our program and look for ways to improve it. You have more information on the Iowa guys then I do the web site does not have enough detail. Do you know how much time they got and when they were released? |
Dan, I think I understand your "change for change sake" in your comment that you see a lot of that at the capitol. I can believe that, and no, that's obviously not what this is about.
No, I don't think the Iowa system is better as a whole. Clearly there is a difference between public urination (if in fact Iowa classifies this as a sex offense) and exposing yourself to a minor. Of course it would be pointless to lump those types of offenses in with the worse ones.
The point is, unless you go to the Iowa offender site, or Public Watchdog, you don't know these Iowa offenders are living here.
Minnesota's site does not tell us. Only the level 3s.
The police cannot do a community notification because, again, they are not level 3s. As I said earlier, I heard what Dwaine Winkels said, and understand it's not their fault we aren't informed.
What gets me is that to find this out, a 3rd party website (Watchdog) was able to tell us. But we had to seek the info out. And if someone hadn't posted that link, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we'd all be blissful in our ignorance.
The one thing the the Family Watchdog site is able to do that the individual state sites CANNOT do, is allow finding offenders from ANY state who are residing here. Otherwise we'd potentially have to search offender databases in 50 states to find out if any of their people have moved here. Apparently there aren't others, because the 5 Iowans is all that comes up.
| Quote (repdan @ Jan. 25 2006,9:33pm) |
If the Iowa site was making them leave the state, there would be more in Austin and Rochester. Don't you think some of our level one and level tow offenders have moved to Iowa? I am not sure, but without having the information I would not guess either. |
By the way, it shows two offenders in Austin, both convicted in Iowa. Searched Rochester zip 55901, 4 hits, 3 of which courtesy our neighbor to the south. Two offenders in the Emmons area, convicted in Iowa. One offender in Clarks Grove, convicted in, you guessed it, Iowa.
No, I'm still not suggesting Iowa is shipping them here. But there does seem to be a trend appearing. Minnesota must offer them some chance for anonymity.
By the way, the Iowa site gives a little more detail than Family Watchdog if you search for these offenders. It only shows date of conviction, not time served or date released, from what I saw.
Hope you can get the BCA presentation. To improve the system, how can Minnesota tell us what offenders are living here, regardless of what state they're from, and what level of offense?
Posted by bob on Jan. 26 2006,6:01 pm
i will be calling hawthorne school tommorrow and speaking to the principal about this situation
Posted by The Game on Jan. 26 2006,7:20 pm
Glad to see that were back on track here. War, Great job with the news folks. As far as the folks from Iowa coming here, lets face it, it makes sense. Minnesota reporting allows them to fly under the radar. It is a few very short miles to get back to Iowa for those that have family there. Much closer than say Austin or Rochester. The police may know that they are here, but the rest of the public has to find out for them selves.I am almost positive that Sheriff Harig and ALPD Chief Winkles and Lt. Strom would love to have the option to tell us or to make information available. I also understand that they have rules put on them.
From what I can see on the Iowa site and via Watchdog. The change I would like to see the state legislature make is that ANYONE regardless of classification (which is subjective to the person doing the evaluating) who is convicted or adjudicated of a crime sexual in nature AGAINST a child, should be put on the net AND OR be subject to community notification, or even a central notification point such as the law enforcement center where a flyer can be put up and thus have a notified public.
I do not agree with someone getting popped for urination having to be listed or even tried as a sex offender. Even those who are sex offenders and fall into level 1 status can be withheld or exempt from notification, for the sake of compromise, as long as the offense did NOT take place against a child.
My goal is to protect the kids and ensure that those who have committed a sex crime against a child NEVER has the chance to do it again. Realistically it will take an informed public to help that a child does not fall victim to one of these men and women.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 26 2006,11:41 pm
I think I found a loophole in the rules regarding the privacy of level 2 sex offenders. 
This information is taken from a neighborhood liaison handbook from the city of Falcon Heights, MN.
LEVEL 2 SEX OFFENDER INFORMATIONis made AVAILABLE when:
1.) law enforcement notifies schools, day care centers, or other organizations where potential victims of the offender might be found, based on his pattern of offending behavior. Law enforcement may also notify individuals whom they believe may be potential victims of the offender, again based on the pattern of behavior.
2.) a citizen goes to the police stationand asks for information about offenderswho target a specific population, which directly affects the citizen. For example, you may ask the department about offenders who target grade school boys because your grandson visits you often, but the police department will not give you information about level 2 offenders who target adolescent girls.
If these rules apply to the entire state of Minnesota then all of the concerned parents and grandparents in Albert Lea should exercise this right and get informed about the risk to their children/grandchildren in their neighborhoods/schools/daycares/city parks/churches.
This Question is for REPDAN: Do these rules apply only to the people of Falcon Heights, or do these rules apply to the State of Minnesota? If these rules apply to the State of Minnesota please let us know so we know we can go to the police station and be informed of any potential risks to our children/grandchildren. If these rules do not apply to Albert Lea, how come they apply to one city in Minnesota but not another?
And REPDAN:
I really like your idea of trying to bring the BCA down here for an informational meeting!
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 26 2006,11:59 pm
Jebus! My kid's school is only a mile from Falcon Heights!
Posted by steph on Jan. 27 2006,8:30 am
Bob..Please let us know what the Hawthorne Staff has to say about this.
Posted by repdan on Jan. 27 2006,8:49 am
Replicant,Like you, I am troubled by our police not being able to talk. I need to do some checking. We need to be able to get good information. If 1 or 2 of the five are level 3 types and 1 or 2 of them a just making level 1, we want to know. I will do some checking on why they can't talk.
Posted by repdan on Jan. 27 2006,8:56 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Jan. 26 2006,11:41pm) |
| I think I found a loophole in the rules regarding the privacy of level 2 sex offenders. This information is taken from a neighborhood liaison handbook from the city of Falcon Heights, MN. LEVEL 2 SEX OFFENDER INFORMATIONis made AVAILABLE when: 1.) law enforcement notifies schools, day care centers, or other organizations where potential victims of the offender might be found, based on his pattern of offending behavior. Law enforcement may also notify individuals whom they believe may be potential victims of the offender, again based on the pattern of behavior. 2.) a citizen goes to the police stationand asks for information about offenderswho target a specific population, which directly affects the citizen. For example, you may ask the department about offenders who target grade school boys because your grandson visits you often, but the police department will not give you information about level 2 offenders who target adolescent girls. If these rules apply to the entire state of Minnesota then all of the concerned parents and grandparents in Albert Lea should exercise this right and get informed about the risk to their children/grandchildren in their neighborhoods/schools/daycares/city parks/churches. This Question is for REPDAN: Do these rules apply only to the people of Falcon Heights, or do these rules apply to the State of Minnesota? If these rules apply to the State of Minnesota please let us know so we know we can go to the police station and be informed of any potential risks to our children/grandchildren. If these rules do not apply to Albert Lea, how come they apply to one city in Minnesota but not another? And REPDAN: I really like your idea of trying to bring the BCA down here for an informational meeting! |
I'll do some checking. I think the level 2 stuff should be available.
My sense is that it would apply to Albert Lea. But I am not sure what happens when someone from Iowa or any other state that just lumps them all together moves in.
Posted by ICU812 on Jan. 27 2006,10:06 am
< About 50 sex offenders living in Albert Lea, five from Iowa >What??
Posted by repdan on Jan. 27 2006,12:11 pm
Up-date.Spoke with several people today in the MN Dept of Corrections. I don't have all the details yet, but Iowa has changed the way they classify offenders. There was a "heinous" crime and passed a law last July that requires them do put the offenders in levels 1 through 4. The reason? It was felt that without the levels, the worst of the worst we able to blend in. I am trying to find out who they will report on their web site.
Posted by bob on Jan. 27 2006,12:26 pm
just got off the phone with hawthorne school the lady i spoke with said that are fully aware of the situation and they have a number of teachers on the playground during recess she also says they are doing the best they can
Posted by cheeba on Jan. 27 2006,3:01 pm
OK so looking at the list by state WHY is Minn's # so low? Dan I am glad you are taking a stand on this subject of sex offenders. This little web site obviously "digs" into things a little deeper than the state site can post but only 96? We would all like to believe that we have a cleaner state of no sex offender but that just isn't true. These are only the ones that have moved up here fom Iowa and they tracked them.
There are a few states worse than us I guess.
Quote from Family Watchdog.....
"Unfortunately, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont do not currently provide addresses for registered sex offenders. Consequently, we are unable to provide adequate or meaningful information about sex offenders located in these states. We will add functionality that will allow searches by name and city in the future.
We suggest that you contact your state senators and representatives and ask them why you cannot have access to critical information you need to protect your loved ones. Tell them that you want the same registered sex offender location information that is available to your neighbors in surrounding states.
We will continue to monitor these four states. When they begin publicizing offender address information we will provide it to Family Watchdog visitors.
So we are not the last state to get on this but close to.
Dan you get this ball rolling and get our system better and clearer to the public you got my whole family's vote come election time (even though I am a democrat).
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 27 2006,4:36 pm
I found a newspaper article: Former Cedar Falls man sentenced for molestation.
Judge does not accept plea bargain, sentences man to six months in jail.
By CHARLOTTE EBY
Courier Staff Writer
WATERLOO
A judge sentenced a former Cedar Falls man to six months in jail Thursday for molesting a 12-year-old girl, despite a prosecutor's recommendation that the man receive probation.
Jon Mark Pittman, 39, now of Charles City, pleaded guilty to indecent contact with a child in August for fondling the girl earlier this year. In exchange for his plea, Black Hawk County attorney Doug Eichholz agreed to recommend a two-year suspended sentence at the time of Pittman's sentencing.
But at the sentencing hearing Thursday, District Associate Judge Jeffrey Harris said he would not accept the sentence agreed upon in the plea deal and ordered Pittman to begin serving his jail term immediately.
Pittman has worked as an area magician who performs hypnosis as part of his act. The abuse did not occur while he was working as an entertainer.
Pittman's attorney, John Ackerman, had asked for a suspended sentenced and probation to be imposed, saying his client had been honest when confronted with the allegations and had never been convicted of a crime before.
"I take full responsibility for my actions. I know what I did was wrong and very shameful," Pittman told Harris.
Before the sentence was handed down, Pittman told Harris he didn't want to go to jail while he was participating in a sex offender treatment program.
But Harris told Pittman he had robbed the girl of her innocence and sentenced Pittman to one year in jail with all but six months suspended.
"You should receive the same consideration you showed for the victim, which is none," Harris said.
Pittman will have to serve two years of probation after his release and will have to register as a sex offender. Harris also fined him $1,500 and ordered him to pay for the counseling of his victim until she turns 21.
(end of newpaper article)
I find it a little bit scary that according to this article this person knows how to perform "hypnosis"
Does that suggest that he can do things to children that they won't remember?.
I am wondering what other people think about this?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 27 2006,5:06 pm
I did not have the same luck finding information on Jonathan Cochran. But I do have a case # for his court caseand I was told by the Polk County Courthouse (the county in IA of his conviction) over the phone that if I went into the courthouse and told them the case # the court records (the details) on the case are public information then. Does anyone have any friends or relatives in the Polk County area that would be willing to go to the courthouse in Polk County and get this information? I want to know the details of the case so we can know how concerned we should be about this person living close to a school. Jonathan Cochran was convicted of "Lascivious Acts With A Child". Here is the Iowa law on "Lascivious Acts With A Child":709.8 LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A CHILD.
It is unlawful for any person sixteen years of age or older toperform any of the following acts with a child with or without the child's consent unless married to each other, for the purpose of arousing or satisfying the sexual desires of either of them:
1. Fondle or touch the pubes or genitals of a child.
2. Permit or cause a child to fondle or touch the person's genitals or pubes.
3. Solicit a child to engage in a sex act or solicit a person to arrange a sex act with a child.
4. Inflict pain or discomfort upon a child or permit a child to inflict pain or discomfort on the person.
numbers 1-3 are very, very serious and I would like Minnesota to make a law preventing people that do those things from living that close to a school/daycare/city park.
Let Me know if anyone wants the case number from Jonathan Cochrans court case that can help.
Also I have a question for REPDAN: Would a petition help pass a law that would prevent sex offenders from living close to schools and would a petition also help in better comminuty notification policies regarding sex offenders?
Posted by Replicant on Jan. 27 2006,5:25 pm
Excellent information Preemptive...good finds.Clearly this guy did not just take a wiz in public. I had wondered what Iowa defined as "Lascivious Acts with a Child".
Thank you.
Posted by bob on Jan. 27 2006,5:27 pm
i would be willing to go down to polk county to expose this dirt bag please pm me with the details i need thank you
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 27 2006,6:48 pm
Texas list all but have them in catogories identifying by different colors on the map check out this zip 78654
Posted by repdan on Jan. 27 2006,6:48 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Jan. 27 2006,5:06pm) |
| I did not have the same luck finding information on Jonathan Cochran. But I do have a case # for his court caseand I was told by the Polk County Courthouse (the county in IA of his conviction) over the phone that if I went into the courthouse and told them the case # the court records (the details) on the case are public information then. Does anyone have any friends or relatives in the Polk County area that would be willing to go to the courthouse in Polk County and get this information? I want to know the details of the case so we can know how concerned we should be about this person living close to a school. Jonathan Cochran was convicted of "Lascivious Acts With A Child". Here is the Iowa law on "Lascivious Acts With A Child": 709.8 LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A CHILD. It is unlawful for any person sixteen years of age or older toperform any of the following acts with a child with or without the child's consent unless married to each other, for the purpose of arousing or satisfying the sexual desires of either of them: 1. Fondle or touch the pubes or genitals of a child. 2. Permit or cause a child to fondle or touch the person's genitals or pubes. 3. Solicit a child to engage in a sex act or solicit a person to arrange a sex act with a child. 4. Inflict pain or discomfort upon a child or permit a child to inflict pain or discomfort on the person. numbers 1-3 are very, very serious and I would like Minnesota to make a law preventing people that do those things from living that close to a school/daycare/city park. Let Me know if anyone wants the case number from Jonathan Cochrans court case that can help. Also I have a question for REPDAN: Would a petition help pass a law that would prevent sex offenders from living close to schools and would a petition also help in better comminuty notification policies regarding sex offenders? |
Slow down lets get get the all the facts on the table. The good news is the DOC will come down and hold a meeting. Knowing what I know now, I would not support the bill to ban them from 2000 feet of a school. Why? 80% of the level 2 and 3's live in MPLS St. Paul and Duluth, the DOC has drawn the map, there is very little space in these cities so where do the move.....Out state.
I talked to the person who is in charge of Iowas site today. Since the law passed that prohibits the 2000 feet, the number of people who have stopped reported has doubled!
The person that you referecce, has to notify MN within 5 days of moving in according to Iowa law at that point, the local people make a decision on what to do, if they believe it warrents it, the can treat the person like a level 2 and notify the effected community IE the people who live in the area of the school.
If I understand the law that you site, this could be a 16 year old and and 15 year old doing what many of us might have done when we were in high school. How much time and resources should we spend tracking that person for 10 years when the chance the re-offend is very, very small? In a world with unlimited funds maybe it would make sense, but there are better ways to keep our kids safe with the resources we have.
Posted by repdan on Jan. 27 2006,6:53 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Jan. 27 2006,4:36pm) |
| I found a newspaper article: Former Cedar Falls man sentenced for molestation. Judge does not accept plea bargain, sentences man to six months in jail. By CHARLOTTE EBY Courier Staff Writer WATERLOO A judge sentenced a former Cedar Falls man to six months in jail Thursday for molesting a 12-year-old girl, despite a prosecutor's recommendation that the man receive probation. Jon Mark Pittman, 39, now of Charles City, pleaded guilty to indecent contact with a child in August for fondling the girl earlier this year. In exchange for his plea, Black Hawk County attorney Doug Eichholz agreed to recommend a two-year suspended sentence at the time of Pittman's sentencing. But at the sentencing hearing Thursday, District Associate Judge Jeffrey Harris said he would not accept the sentence agreed upon in the plea deal and ordered Pittman to begin serving his jail term immediately. Pittman has worked as an area magician who performs hypnosis as part of his act. The abuse did not occur while he was working as an entertainer. Pittman's attorney, John Ackerman, had asked for a suspended sentenced and probation to be imposed, saying his client had been honest when confronted with the allegations and had never been convicted of a crime before. "I take full responsibility for my actions. I know what I did was wrong and very shameful," Pittman told Harris. Before the sentence was handed down, Pittman told Harris he didn't want to go to jail while he was participating in a sex offender treatment program. But Harris told Pittman he had robbed the girl of her innocence and sentenced Pittman to one year in jail with all but six months suspended. "You should receive the same consideration you showed for the victim, which is none," Harris said. Pittman will have to serve two years of probation after his release and will have to register as a sex offender. Harris also fined him $1,500 and ordered him to pay for the counseling of his victim until she turns 21. (end of newpaper article) I find it a little bit scary that according to this article this person knows how to perform "hypnosis" Does that suggest that he can do things to children that they won't remember?. I am wondering what other people think about this? |
This is a good examaple of why Iowa is changing there system. You look at the site and they all look the same, bad, but this guy is way more of a concern to me then the 16 and 15 year old parking.
Assuming this is all correct, I wonder what ranking the locals gave him? If the believe him to be a threat they can notify the people around and in the school, but it does not sound like this has happened? But again, to be clear, I may not have all the facts.
Posted by repdan on Jan. 27 2006,6:55 pm
| Quote (cheeba @ Jan. 27 2006,3:01pm) |
| OK so looking at the list by state WHY is Minn's # so low? Dan I am glad you are taking a stand on this subject of sex offenders. This little web site obviously "digs" into things a little deeper than the state site can post but only 96? We would all like to believe that we have a cleaner state of no sex offender but that just isn't true. These are only the ones that have moved up here fom Iowa and they tracked them. There are a few states worse than us I guess. Quote from Family Watchdog..... "Unfortunately, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont do not currently provide addresses for registered sex offenders. Consequently, we are unable to provide adequate or meaningful information about sex offenders located in these states. We will add functionality that will allow searches by name and city in the future. We suggest that you contact your state senators and representatives and ask them why you cannot have access to critical information you need to protect your loved ones. Tell them that you want the same registered sex offender location information that is available to your neighbors in surrounding states. We will continue to monitor these four states. When they begin publicizing offender address information we will provide it to Family Watchdog visitors. So we are not the last state to get on this but close to. Dan you get this ball rolling and get our system better and clearer to the public you got my whole family's vote come election time (even though I am a democrat). |
Yup, but undestand I don't view the Iowa system as better. 35% of the victims of sex crimes are over 18 and in Iowa these don't show up.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 27 2006,7:44 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Jan. 27 2006,6:48pm) |
| Slow down lets get get the all the facts on the table. The good news is the DOC will come down and hold a meeting. Knowing what I know now, I would not support the bill to ban them from 2000 feet of a school. Why? 80% of the level 2 and 3's live in MPLS St. Paul and Duluth, the DOC has drawn the map, there is very little space in these cities so where do the move.....Out state. I talked to the person who is in charge of Iowas site today. Since the law passed that prohibits the 2000 feet, the number of people who have stopped reported has doubled! The person that you referecce, has to notify MN within 5 days of moving in according to Iowa law at that point, the local people make a decision on what to do, if they believe it warrents it, the can treat the person like a level 2 and notify the effected community IE the people who live in the area of the school. If I understand the law that you site, this could be a 16 year old and and 15 year old doing what many of us might have done when we were in high school. How much time and resources should we spend tracking that person for 10 years when the chance the re-offend is very, very small? In a world with unlimited funds maybe it would make sense, but there are better ways to keep our kids safe with the resources we have. |
If it is a 15 and a 16 year old doing what some people have done when they are in high school I don't think taxpayers money should be wasted tracking them, but in this case it was a 30 year old with someone aged 0-13.
Also it came to my attention today that the person I reference does not live at the address given on the site www.mapsexoffender.com the person I reference bought a house on Garfield ave. that is closer to Hawthorne School then the previous address. (I do not know how accurate is the information I recieved but it was a very reliable source) If this person has to notify MN within 5 days of moving why is the address not updated yet?
REPDAN,
I thank you for taking the time to communicate with us on this forum. Is their a timeline yet on when the DOC will come down and hold a meeting?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 27 2006,7:56 pm
Would anyone be willing to help get signatures on a petition asking the state to either:1. ban sex offenders (especially when the victim is age 0-13) from living within so many feet of a school/daycare.
or
2. Change the way the public is notified about sex offenders.
(For example I think every parent that has a child going to Hawthorne had the right to be told 2 sex offenders whose victims ages were 0-13 were living one and a half blocks way from the school)
or both?
What are peoples thoughts on this?
I am looking for positive or negative feedback on this.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 27 2006,8:04 pm
Yes and your welcome to put a copy at Eddies and the Web Room.
Posted by DrBombay on Jan. 27 2006,9:23 pm
| Quote |
| If I understand the law that you site, this could be a 16 year old and and 15 year old doing what many of us might have done when we were in high school. How much time and resources should we spend tracking that person for 10 years when the chance the re-offend is very, very small? In a world with unlimited funds maybe it would make sense, but there are better ways to keep our kids safe with the resources we have. |
I appreciate your good sense RepDan. I agree that Iowa's system isn't the way to go. This scenerio came to mind when I started reading this thread. I remember hearing a story of someone's son who was 17 or 18 and his girlfriend was 15 or 16. The girl ended up pregnant (via consensual sex) and her parents who didn't like the boy pressed statutory rape charges. The boy was convicted of the charge and had to register as a sex offender. He had a difficult time finding a job or a landlord who'd rent to him. Of course people treated him as a filthy child molester and his life was pretty much a living hell. All for as you said "doing what many of us might have done when we were in high school."
So like the alley pissers (in some states), some on the level 1 offender list shouldn't be on there or atleast not thrown in with the level 2's and 3's and reported publicly.
With that said I have to play devil's advocate here because I have to wonder how many henious sex acts to children have been plead down to level 1 charges or less by county attorneys who are trying to save money. We might be amazed and sickened at the same time. Hmmm?? Maybe that's why Minnesota's rate is so low in comparison to other states.?? Just my thoughts!
I don't know that it would comfort me to know that a sex offender lived 2005 ft. from the elementary school or daycare my child attended than it would if they lived 1095 ft. away. They can still move in next door to where I live in a neighborhood with lots of children. IMO if these sex offenders are going to re-offend, they'll find children regardless of how close they live to an elementary school.
| Quote |
| I talked to the person who is in charge of Iowas site today. Since the law passed that prohibits the 2000 feet, the number of people who have stopped reported has doubled! |
RepDan;
I don't get what this means! The number of what people, stopped doing what?
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 27 2006,9:32 pm
In order to get the state behind our goal I have started a New Yahoo Group< http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minnesotans_for_law_reform >
< Get there by clicking there >
Posted by repdan on Jan. 27 2006,9:34 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Jan. 27 2006,7:56pm) |
| Would anyone be willing to help get signatures on a petition asking the state to either: 1. ban sex offenders (especially when the victim is age 0-13) from living within so many feet of a school/daycare. or 2. Change the way the public is notified about sex offenders. (For example I think every parent that has a child going to Hawthorne had the right to be told 2 sex offenders whose victims ages were 0-13 were living one and a half blocks way from the school) or both? What are peoples thoughts on this? I am looking for positive or negative feedback on this. |
Are you sure that's what you want to do? I don't want the 2 and 3 from MPLS and St Paul moving into greater minnesota. I am told the push in Iowa came from the larger cities because they had too many of them.
Posted by repdan on Jan. 27 2006,9:37 pm
Opps, my bad, the number of people who have stopped reporting where they live has doubled, since the restriction is so tight, it forces them into the rural areas or they just stop reporting. So you don't know where they are.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 28 2006,4:36 am
From what I have read in your post, Dan you are more concerned to protect the state of MN from law suite than protect our children. Take it to legislation be a leader.
Posted by REPOMAN on Jan. 28 2006,8:04 am
| Quote (GEOKOFF @ Jan. 28 2006,4:36am) |
| From what I have read in your post, Dan you are more concerned to protect the state of MN from law suite than protect our children. Take it to legislation be a leader. |
Are you really that stupid, Geokoff...
he doesn't want them to leave large metro areas or stop reporting because it is hard to live somewhere in a populated area that is not within 2000 feet of a school...
and he just wants to clean up the reporting end of it to insure that the poor bastard that is busted at the age of 19 for having relations with his 15/16 yr old girlfriend isn't lumped in with the 39 year old that molested a 12 year old...
is that so hard to understand...
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 28 2006,10:50 am
Are you so stupid that you don't see his him hawing on the issue there must be great minds put together on this one in order to make the populous happy and not the opinion of one representative to let the issue die, Mr I didn't call you Terrorist,You admittedly terrorized the offender that's the answer, right. Be a man tell us who you are or shut the hell up.
According to the family watchdog website most of the offenders live in downtown ares of the twin cities. What we want stopped is the alure to Mn from Iowa offfenders.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 28 2006,11:20 am
| Quote |
| How much time and resources should we spend tracking that person for 10 years when the chance the re-offend is very, very small? In a world with unlimited funds maybe it would make sense, but there are better ways to keep our kids safe with the resources we have. |
The same amount of resource it takes to slap a DUI plate on the back of a car possibly?
Posted by repdan on Jan. 28 2006,11:36 am
| Quote (GEOKARJO @ Jan. 28 2006,10:50am) |
| Are you so stupid that you don't see his him hawing on the issue there must be great minds put together on this one in order to make the populous happy and not the opinion of one representative to let the issue die, Mr I didn't call you Terrorist, You admittedly terrorized the offender that's the answer, right. Be a man tell us who you are or shut the hell up. According to the family watchdog website most of the offenders live in downtown ares of the twin cities. What we want stopped is the alure to Mn from Iowa offfenders. |
I must not be able to write very well. All ideas that sound good are not good, sound ideas.
80% of the level 2 and 3 offenders live in Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth. This is not uncommon that they would live in the core cities. In Iowa, the core cities pushed to outlaw them within 2000 of schools, playgrounds, daycare......the result is that the number of those not reporting has doubled, now no one knows where they are, and they others have moved in to the rural areas of Iowa. I have no interest is helping pass legislation that would encourage level 2's and 3's from moving out of the core cities and into our area. I have no idea what this would have to do with a lawsuit. From my point of view, this is leadership, not just reacting to something because it "sounds good" but taking the time to get the necessary information to make a good sound decision.
Just moving to Minnesota has not taken them off the "watchdog" list nor does it stop them from showing up on the DOJ site, so what have they escaped? If we had a list of the level ones in Minnesota from say 5 years ago, I wonder how many of them have moved out of state?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 28 2006,5:52 pm
This information taken from:Code of the Township of Jackson, New Jersey
Chapter 53, SEX OFFENDERS RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
[HISTORY: Adopted by the Township Committee of the Township of Jackson 6-13-2005 by Ord. No. 26-05. Amendments noted where applicable.]
§ 53-1. Residency restrictions.
A. No person over the age of 18 who has been convicted of a violation of any crime against a minor as listed in N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2, and who as a result of said conviction is required to register with the proper authorities to N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 et seq., Registration and Notification of Release of Certain Offenders, shall be permitted to reside or live within 2,500 feet of any school, park, playground or day-care center in Jackson Township.
B. A person who resides or lives within 2,500 feet of any school, park, playground or day-care center in the Township of Jackson shall have 60 days from receipt of written notice of the prohibition set forth herein to move. Failure to move to a location which is in compliance with this section within that time period shall constitute a violation of this section.
C. This section shall not apply to a person who has established a residence prior to June 15, 2005. (this is the only part of the law I don’t like)
D. Any violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,250; imprisonment for a term not exceeding 90 days; a period of community service not exceeding 90 days.
E. The prohibitions set forth in Subsections A and B herein shall also restrict registered sex offenders from residing or living within 2,500 feet of any amusement park, roller rink and movie theater in Jackson Township. [Added 7-25-2005 by Ord. No. 31-05]
I wish it was the code of the City of Albert Lea, Minnesota.
On Monday I am going to contact the Jackson Township in New Jersey and ask them how much deterrence this law has created to prevent child molesters/pedophiles from hurting children.
The city of Albert Lea needs to take legal action to show the Sex Offenders from Iowa they are not welcome here. The city of Albert Lea also needs to show residents of Albert Lea if they become sex offenders they are not welcome here either.
Contact your Mayor, City Council, and your neighbors and let them know how you feel about the migration of pedophiles/child molesters/sex offenders into Albert Lea from Iowa. Also let your Mayor, City Council, and your neighbors know that we need to pass a city ordinance showing the sex offenders/pedophiles/child molesters they are not welcome here no matter what state they are from.
Who wants to go to the next city council meeting and address the city on record about this problem?
Any volunteers?
Posted by repdan on Jan. 28 2006,9:11 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Jan. 28 2006,5:52pm) |
| I wish it was the code of the City of Albert Lea, Minnesota. On Monday I am going to contact the Jackson Township in New Jersey and ask them how much deterrence this law has created to prevent child molesters/pedophiles from hurting children. |
Please ask them what has happened to the number of them that no longer register and how they track the people who give them a false address. Also, ask for any data they have showing this has helped reduce the number of sex crime committed against children. It would be interesting to know if people working in corrections and law enforcement pushed for this.
Do you think we would be safer with a law like this? If people comply, we are going to end up with more of them moving out of the metro area and into Greater Minnesota. The DOC has drawn the map and there is little if any place they could live in Minneapolis or the suburbs.
Anyone know if there is a positive corralation between living by a school and more likely to reoffend?
I understand peoples reactions, if I use only me heart, I get it. But any changes we push for should be done so to improve condiations.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 28 2006,10:15 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Jan. 28 2006,9:11pm) |
| Do you think we would be safer with a law like this? If people comply, we are going to end up with more of them moving out of the metro area and into Greater Minnesota. The DOC has drawn the map and there is little if any place they could live in Minneapolis or the suburbs. Anyone know if there is a positive corralation between living by a school and more likely to reoffend? |
I do not want these kind of people moving here either that is why I want to push for the city of Albert Lea to pass a law.
I will do the research and if their is a positive correlation I will let you know.
Here is some research I found already though:
These statistics come from the Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study.
For the study reports were analyzed on a total of 4,007 adults aged 18-95 who admitted they had sexually molested one or more children
40% of child molesters reported molesting children of their friends or their neighbors.
24% of men molesting children in their own family were also molesting children of their friends or neighbors.
10% of child molesters reported molesting a child that was a “stranger”.
From the way this research looks if the pedophiles/sex offenders/child molesters do not live near schools then the "neighbors children" walking to school have a lesser chance of being hurt.
I will do more research on this and get back to you.
Posted by anymom on Jan. 28 2006,10:34 pm
I can't find any mention of the Level 2 Offender by the name of Eric Michael Dorman, address 100 block of South Broadway. My daycare was just notified by mail of his release by the ALPD.
Posted by FlyguyAL on Jan. 28 2006,10:44 pm
I agree with Repdan| Quote (repdan @ Jan. 28 2006,9:11pm) |
| I understand peoples reactions, if I use only me heart, I get it. But any changes we push for should be done so to improve conditions. |
I live less than a hop skip and a jump from the folks from IA that live on Garfield. Now that I have pics and a name, thanks to Cheeba posting the website, I know who too look out for.
I would like conditions improved so that I don't have to constantly check a website to be sure I'm up to date on the sex offenders in my area.
Posted by irisheyes on Jan. 29 2006,4:42 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Jan. 28 2006,5:52pm) |
| The city of Albert Lea needs to take legal action to show the Sex Offenders from Iowa they are not welcome here. The city of Albert Lea also needs to show residents of Albert Lea if they become sex offenders they are not welcome here either. |
Be realistic here, is there a city, county, or state anywhere in the nation that welcomes sex offenders? If every area that doesn't want them passes laws banning them, they'll all just stop reporting because there won't be a place where they can live legally.
We need a solution that's more realistic than the, "not in my neighborhood, city, county, or state" approach.
Posted by Ned Kelly on Jan. 29 2006,8:07 am
| Quote (irisheyes @ Jan. 29 2006,4:42am) |
| Be realistic here, is there a city, county, or state anywhere in the nation that welcomes sex offenders? If every area that doesn't want them passes laws banning them, they'll all just stop reporting because there won't be a place where they can live legally. We need a solution that's more realistic than the, "not in my neighborhood, city, county, or state" approach. |
Send them to Iraq to check for road side explosives.........
.............ned
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 29 2006,8:13 am
| Quote (anymom @ Jan. 28 2006,10:34pm) |
| I can't find any mention of the Level 2 Offender by the name of Eric Michael Dorman, address 100 block of South Broadway. My daycare was just notified by mail of his release by the ALPD. |
Eric Michael Dorman was convicted of:
Minnesota statute 152.022
Controlled substance crime in the second degree.
Eric Michael Dorman was convicted in Steele County.
I do not see any information regarding him as a sex offender.
If he is a level 2 sex offender could someone please tell me why I can find his conviction on a drug charge but nothing else???
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 29 2006,9:10 am
| Quote (irisheyes @ Jan. 29 2006,4:42am) | ||
Be realistic here, is there a city, county, or state anywhere in the nation that welcomes sex offenders? If every area that doesn't want them passes laws banning them, they'll all just stop reporting because there won't be a place where they can live legally. We need a solution that's more realistic than the, "not in my neighborhood, city, county, or state" approach. |
I actually wish the solution was the "not in my neighborhood, city, county, state, or country" approach.
but that would only work in a perfect world and if it was a perfect world no sex offenders would exist anyway.
I think my thoughts are pretty clear on the solution:
ban them all from living even remotely close to places that children go (schools, parks, daycares)
or change the community notification process so the community has a right to know anytime someone lives in their city that has been convicted of a sexual crime against a child (except for that high school thing REPDAN was talking about).
I think changing the community notification process is the most realistic solution (but I would prefer both of my solutions)
What kind of solution would you suggest?
Maybe you have a really good idea on a solution that I haven't thought of yet?
Posted by repdan on Jan. 29 2006,9:20 am
First, he is the son of my cousin. He would not be on the the sex crime would not be on the web site since he did not serve time in a DOC prison for the crime. When the program was set up in Minnesota, the decision was made to only list the level 3. These are the ones who are most likely to reoffend. Why? Because at the time, the thinking was that given the fact that these are the most likely reoffend and are the not the folks who were parking in high school or whatever, they wanted them to stand out. Side note, this is why Iowa made a change to their system last year after a 4 or 5 year old girl was murdered in Cedar Rapids and the reaction was that since all the people were out there, people could not tell who to really be concerned about. I'm not so sure it would have made a difference either way.
Back to Minnesota, level 3's end up on the web site and then you have communty meetings. A level 2, you notify the people in the area where he moves. I thought they gave you more details of his crime. In this case, and I am working from memory, I believe he was 21 or 22 and had sex with a 15 year old. And for the record, I did not know he was a level 2 but if you year up the posts, I think they should be listed on the web sites.
Posted by repdan on Jan. 29 2006,9:35 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Jan. 29 2006,9:10am) |
| I think my thoughts are pretty clear on the solution: ban them all from living even remotely close to places that children go (schools, parks, daycares) or change the community notification process so the community has a right to know anytime someone lives in their city that has been convicted of a sexual crime against a child (except for that high school thing REPDAN was talking about). I think changing the community notification process is the most realistic solution (but I would prefer both of my solutions) What kind of solution would you suggest? Maybe you have a really good idea on a solution that I haven't thought of yet? |
I think your thougts are clear, but I don't think you are looking at the unintended consequences. Many of them won't move they will either stop reporting or list another address. Those who move will move out of the core cities an in to less populated areas like a farm house or small town. You seem to believe that there is a correlation between living near a school and reoffending. In the survey you read, did they happen to mention how many of those convicted of a first time offense?
Other solutions? There is a bill that I think will come out of this years session that will require level 2 and 3 to wear an electronic monitor. I have not heard all the testimony, but my first reaction is this may be a very good idea.
The
was very classy.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 29 2006,10:37 am
| Quote (repdan @ Jan. 29 2006,9:35am) |
| The was very classy. |
the
was not what it looks like.I thought I was helping a concerned mom and that's what the
was for. I did not know you were related
, and I have respect for you being honest and truthful about it. Now I hope the daycare will not worry as much because they know the facts of the situation. I think this provides a situation maybe we can both agree on:
If the police have to report to a daycare about a 21 year old that had relations with a 15 year old (and I am curious why they would have to-I could understand a high school but not a daycare), then the police should have to report to a elementary school about a 40 year old that molested a 12 year old (Jon Pittman-1 1/2 blocks away from Hawthorne).
Posted by Wareagle11B on Jan. 29 2006,1:41 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Jan. 29 2006,10:37am) |
| If the police have to report to a daycare about a 21 year old that had relations with a 15 year old (and I am curious why they would have to-I could understand a high school but not a daycare), then the police should have to report to a elementary school about a 40 year old that molested a 12 year old (Jon Pittman-1 1/2 blocks away from Hawthorne). |
The police, as per MN Law, have to report all Level 2 and 3 offenders. The Level 2 offenders have to be reported to any Schools and Daycares in the neighborhood in which he/she will be living due to the fact that he is at Level 2. Level 3 requires the neighborhood in which he/she is moving into to be notified as well as notifying according to Level 2 requirements.
Dan my only concern is that we have persons who have been convicted of a sex crime with children UNDER the age of 13 living so close to a school. It is not my intent to drive these people out of town as they do have a right to live in relative peace and obscurity but I definitely do not want these types of people living so close to an Elementary school whether or not they are at risk of reoffending. The temptation is just too great for it to happen again. (Think back to the Alcoholic comparison) I think that in a situation like this they should not be allowed anywhere near Elementary schools. Even in the T/C area they can live far enough away to keep people happy. As far as classifying these sexual convicts/predators I think we should break it down into an age group type classification. If you commit an act with a child between the ages of 0-13 they should automatically go into the worst of the lot and adjust it as the age gets higher. 14 - 18 Level 2 perhaps and so on etc etc. This is, of course, only an idea and perhaps it is something that can be refined. If these people do not follow the requirements of the law, i.e. register with local Law Enforcement, then they should be ready for a trip back to prison for alot longer period and finding them should become an issue for law enforcement. All I want, and I think alot of others want this as well, is to KNOW when people like this are living so close to a school where our children attend and perhaps keeping them further away will also limit the chances of them reoffending.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 29 2006,1:58 pm
Although Level one and under have committed crimes against children I don't think we need exact addresses but we do need to know within what 100 block any offender does live in. If we put out locations and Identity of the offenders you are going to have some arrogant individual calling them up and harassing them causing the individual to as Dan said give false reporting. Make it a program if no one ask the PD doesn't have to tell. Information can only be viewed at the courthouse and not publically distributed.
Posted by churla on Jan. 29 2006,6:43 pm
there is an article in the des moines sunday register on sex offenders and the effects the residency law has had
Posted by anymom on Jan. 29 2006,8:08 pm
I was still wondering about the Magician. Is this really true? Is he not at Applebees anymore. Which one is he on the offender list?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 29 2006,9:20 pm
| Quote (anymom @ Jan. 29 2006,8:08pm) |
| I was still wondering about the Magician. Is this really true? Is he not at Applebees anymore. Which one is he on the offender list? |
click on this:
< Amazing Mark the Magician >
and this:
< his roommate >
Posted by REPOMAN on Jan. 29 2006,9:35 pm
They must have met in jail - their offenses are about a year apart and in different counties...
Posted by REPOMAN on Jan. 29 2006,9:36 pm
it is an interesting note for the story I AM writing - I wasn't aware that they are roommates...that's right, Geokoff - I am going to write the article for the Trib whether you like it or not...
I'll use the pen name "Bruce Wayne" so youi'll know it was my story...
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 29 2006,10:47 pm
| Quote (REPOMAN @ Jan. 29 2006,9:36pm) |
| it is an interesting note for the story I AM writing - I wasn't aware that they are roommates... that's right, Geokoff - I am going to write the article for the Trib whether you like it or not... I'll use the pen name "Bruce Wayne" so youi'll know it was my story... |
Instead of writing a story for the trib I have got a much better idea for you.
Give NBC, ABC, or FOX a call and go nationwide with a reality show for Television.
Kind of like survivor or apprentice except the storyline could be something like this....
When sex offenders move into a house very close to an elementary school, which sex offender can go the longest without offending again?
The star of the show is a magician that is trained in the art of "hypnosis" so it will be very hard to catch him offending again.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 29 2006,11:43 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Jan. 29 2006,9:35am) |
| Other solutions? There is a bill that I think will come out of this years session that will require level 2 and 3 to wear an electronic monitor. I have not heard all the testimony, but my first reaction is this may be a very good idea. |
Do you think better community notification could be added to the bill you are talking about?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 29 2006,11:48 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Jan. 29 2006,1:41pm) |
| All I want, and I think alot of others want this as well, is to KNOW when people like this are living so close to a school where our children attend and perhaps keeping them further away will also limit the chances of them reoffending. |
I agree 100%.
What do other people think about this?
Does anyone disagree?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 29 2006,11:55 pm
| Quote (bob @ Jan. 27 2006,5:27pm) |
| i would be willing to go down to polk county to expose this dirt bag please pm me with the details i need thank you |
If you have the opportunity this week to go I am looking forward to hear about what you find out. I want to know how worried/concerned I should be about this guy living that close to an elementary school!
Posted by Bookworm on Jan. 30 2006,9:51 am
I have an idea! Why don't the 3 of you (you know who you are) stop your boring 'bashing' and GET BACK ON TOPIC. If you don't have any helpful/useful infromation or questions then perhaps don't even reply to this topic. Take your private war to your own space. Don't bother to respond in sarcasm, I'll answer for you. 'Who do I think I am' and 'I haven't been a part of this discussion'. I am a concerned parent as well as most of the others who have been posting/reading on this subject. And I haven't had to post on this subject because my fiance' has been doing a wonderful job of it himself, he expresses questions and concerns better than I ever could. So back to my original statement. If you want to bash and call each other childish names then perhaps do it on one of the other topics that you've already taken over. 
Have a nice day!
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 30 2006,10:28 am
What I posteded and got bashed for was telling Repo he had no right to harrass this bum magic man which is on the topic. It is because of idiots like him we are not being informed.
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 30 2006,11:49 am
Point taken.Admin, please delete my irrelevant posts, with apologies to the forum at large.
Posted by REPOMAN on Jan. 30 2006,1:10 pm
Point taken as well...Admin please move my posts that show Geokoff to be a clown to another thread where I am also showing him to be a clown...
Posted by The Game on Jan. 30 2006,4:58 pm
Group: MembersPosts: 464
Joined: July 2004 Posted: Jan. 26 2006,7:20pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glad to see that were back on track here. War, Great job with the news folks. As far as the folks from Iowa coming here, lets face it, it makes sense. Minnesota reporting allows them to fly under the radar. It is a few very short miles to get back to Iowa for those that have family there. Much closer than say Austin or Rochester. The police may know that they are here, but the rest of the public has to find out for them selves.
I am almost positive that Sheriff Harig and ALPD Chief Winkles and Lt. Strom would love to have the option to tell us or to make information available. I also understand that they have rules put on them.
From what I can see on the Iowa site and via Watchdog. The change I would like to see the state legislature make is that ANYONE regardless of classification (which is subjective to the person doing the evaluating) who is convicted or adjudicated of a crime sexual in nature AGAINST a child, should be put on the net AND OR be subject to community notification, or even a central notification point such as the law enforcement center where a flyer can be put up and thus have a notified public.
I do not agree with someone getting popped for urination having to be listed or even tried as a sex offender. Even those who are sex offenders and fall into level 1 status can be withheld or exempt from notification, for the sake of compromise, as long as the offense did NOT take place against a child.
My goal is to protect the kids and ensure that those who have committed a sex crime against a child NEVER has the chance to do it again. Realistically it will take an informed public to help that a child does not fall victim to one of these men and women.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 30 2006,6:21 pm
I know this is not the best example, but it is the best way I can describe this. Anyone that has worked in a factory, or has had to deal with OSHA should have a pretty good idea what I am talking about.In businesses they have something called "Right-to-Know".
Every employer that falls under the requirements must keep a MSDS book on all the chemicals they use in the company with a right to know policy (in other words all employees have a right to know what kind of chemical they are working with or around).
Every chemical used in the business is listed in the MSDS book regardless if it very dangerous, or just a little dangerous.
Basically employees are protected from the chemicals because they can go to the MSDS book and see what kind of precaution they should take when they are working with or around a certain chemical. No matter the risk of danger with a chemical you have a RIGHT TO KNOW and can check the risk level yourself and determine the safety precautions that should be followed.
I know this is a bad comparison but I hope I got my point across.
Posted by repdan on Jan. 30 2006,7:11 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Jan. 29 2006,11:43pm) | ||
Do you think better community notification could be added to the bill you are talking about? |
Sure it can, the question is what is better. The more people I talk to in the field, the more I am concerned about making changes that are popular with some, but may not at best do anything to "keep kids safer" and at worst make things worse. Conn. has a system like Iowas and is now moving away from it. Iowa is changing there system.
On the positive side, looks like we are going to have the DOC down on Feb. 20th for a community hearing on the issue.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 30 2006,10:30 pm
I was wondering if REPDAN could share any information he had on this:H.R. 3132: Children's Safety Act of 2005
the information I found on it says:
Sep 14, 2005: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote.
Sep 15, 2005: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Do you know the current status of the bill?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 30 2006,10:54 pm
Just some facts I found that were current as of June 2005.According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children there is 16,445 registered sex offenders in Minnesota compared to 6,590 registered sex offenders in Iowa.
Using the Bureau of Justice statistics:
"Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders."
That means we have 43% of 16,445 registered sex offenders that will be arrested again, for a total of 7,071 registered sex offenders that will commit a crime again.
If you go by these statistics we have more registered sex offenders that will commit another crime than Iowa’s total amount of registered sex offenders.
(7,071 to 6,590)
16,445 REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS IN MINNESOTA!!
Posted by Beyonce_clone on Jan. 31 2006,8:10 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Jan. 30 2006,10:54pm) |
| Just some facts I found that were current as of June 2005. According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children there is 16,445 registered sex offenders in Minnesota compared to 6,590 registered sex offenders in Iowa. Using the Bureau of Justice statistics: "Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders." That means we have 43% of 16,445 registered sex offenders that will be arrested again, for a total of 7,071 registered sex offenders that will commit a crime again. If you go by these statistics we have more registered sex offenders that will commit another crime than Iowa’s total amount of registered sex offenders. (7,071 to 6,590) 16,445 REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS IN MINNESOTA!! |
You got mail
Posted by TameThaTane on Jan. 31 2006,10:00 am
First of all, sex offender doesn't necessarily mean pedophile.
Posted by Liberal on Jan. 31 2006,10:26 am
Here's part of an MPR article that says there could be as many as 350 level 3 sex offenders in Minnesota that have never been assessed a risk level.| Quote |
He's one of about 15,000 registered sex offenders in Minnesota, according to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. About 3,000 of those offenders have been evaluated and assigned a risk level before being released from prison. An estimated 12,000 sex offenders have no risk level because they haven't been assessed. Offenders who are sentenced to time in a county jail, probation, or those who were released from prison prior to 1997 are not assigned a risk level. A recent change in Minnesota law allows police to notify the public when a high-risk sex offender moves here from another state. It's likely many of the 12,000 Minnesota offenders with no risk level assigned would be considered low-risk offenders if they were evaluated. But at least 3,000 served time in a state prison and were released before the community notification law took effect in 1997. A Minnesota Department of Corrections official says using statistical analysis, it's fair to assume approximately 350 of those could be Level 3, high-risk offenders, if they were evaluated. Ottertail County Sheriff Brian Schlueter says the public should know more about potentially dangerous sex offenders. Schlueter was also a member of Gov. Pawlenty's Sex Offender Task Force. < http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/feature....fenders > |
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 31 2006,10:32 am
| Quote (TameThaTane @ Jan. 31 2006,10:00am) |
| First of all, sex offender doesn't necessarily mean pedophile. |
As drug addiction does not necessarily involve illegal use of drugs but sex offender is classified much like a thief. A thief can be broke down into other categories Burglar, armed robber, bank robber, car thief, embezzler, but he is still a thief never less
Posted by TameThaTane on Jan. 31 2006,11:28 am
BS
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 31 2006,11:36 am
| Quote (TameThaTane @ Jan. 31 2006,10:00am) |
| First of all, sex offender doesn't necessarily mean pedophile. |
You are right, not all sex offenders are pedophiles.........
Some sex offenders are CHILD MOLESTERS, RAPISTS, PERVERTS, or PAEDOPHILES.
Posted by TameThaTane on Jan. 31 2006,2:25 pm
And some are 18-20 years of age and had sex with their minor girlfriends. Where do they fit in?
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 31 2006,3:09 pm
| Quote (TameThaTane @ Jan. 31 2006,2:25pm) |
| And some are 18-20 years of age and had sex with their minor girlfriends. Where do they fit in? |
Mn Law clearly states it is against the law for an 18 year old to engage in mutual sex with a 15 year old it is not against the law for an 18 year old to engage in mutual sex with a 16 or 17 year old.
MN law states something about 2 year difference in age. When Mutual Sex Becomes Non Mutual
Posted by The Coach on Jan. 31 2006,3:28 pm
| Quote (TameThaTane @ Jan. 31 2006,2:25pm) |
| And some are 18-20 years of age and had sex with their minor girlfriends. Where do they fit in? |
Guess you were smokin' a doobie in the bathroom when that was covered in sex ed.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 31 2006,5:18 pm
| Quote (TameThaTane @ Jan. 31 2006,2:25pm) |
| And some are 18-20 years of age and had sex with their minor girlfriends. Where do they fit in? |
Instead of asking ourselves "where do they fit in?"
How about asking ourselves "When is a child not a child anymore?"
At what age does a minor stop being a child and become just a minor?
Posted by Glad I Left on Jan. 31 2006,5:52 pm
My wife had a friend years back before we met when she lived in Waseca. He was 16 and was dating a 14 yr old. They had sexual relations up until she was 15 or so. Her parents didn't like him so decided to have him charged with statuatory rape or sex w/ a minor or some crap like that. He had to register as a sex offendor. Kind of a crappy deal for him as the sex was consensual. Not like the other whack-jobs he's getting lumped in with. I don't know him personally so I cannot speak to his character but taking the situation at face value it seems unfair to him.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 31 2006,6:33 pm
Everyone here probably remembers < Dru Sjodin >but how many people know about < Jessica Marie Lunsford >
or < Megan Nicole Kanka >
Click on the name to learn more.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 31 2006,6:56 pm
https://cch.state.mn.us/Forms/SubjectInfo.aspxCheck criminal history back to 15 years on anyone.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Jan. 31 2006,7:08 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Jan. 31 2006,5:18pm) |
| Instead of asking ourselves "where do they fit in?" How about asking ourselves "When is a child not a child anymore?" At what age does a minor stop being a child and become just a minor? |
I believe that most states would agree that at age 16 most kids, be they male or female, would know what the difference between consensual sex and rape is. At this age so many things change for kids. They can drive, stay out later, get a job etc etc so I think the answer to your question would probably be 16. This of course is just supposition on my part so it is by no means the gospel truth. As for this topic, once again what I think many people would like to see is better communication as far as these offenders go. A change in the law may not be an easy thing to accomplish but I believe it can be done. I do not want someone who has been convicted of a sexual felony with a child under the age of 13 anywhere near an elementary school. I wouldn't want one convicted of a sexual felony with a high school age girl near a high school either so I am not limited to just what these 2 have been convicted of. This is a subject that does not sit well with me simply because the fact that they COULD reoffend is made all the more easier by the fact that they live so close to an Elementary school and along a street where so many kids walk to and from that same school. Again a line of communication between L.E. and the public, even if it involved my having to go to the L.E. center to get the information, would be better than finding out that this situation existed the way I and others did. If I have to go to the Police station to find this out because of the nature of the situation then so be it but let me KNOW that this is what I have to do to find this out.
RepDan thanks for the info on the DOC meet and please let us know the time and place so I can attend.
Posted by repdan on Jan. 31 2006,9:55 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Jan. 30 2006,10:30pm) |
| I was wondering if REPDAN could share any information he had on this: H.R. 3132: Children's Safety Act of 2005 the information I found on it says: Sep 14, 2005: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. Sep 15, 2005: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Do you know the current status of the bill? |
HR means it is a federal bill. I would suggest you contact Congressman Gutknecht on this.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 31 2006,9:59 pm
< Track The Bill >It has passed the house and is now in senate
< http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-3132 >
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 31 2006,10:36 pm
H.R. 3132: Children's Safety Act of 2005I researched this bill a liitle bit and I have to share my two favorite parts I have found so far with the rest of you.
These two sections address two of the issues people are talking about on this wonderful forum.
Section 120 -
Establishes the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public website. Requires the Attorney General to: (1) maintain the website as a site on the Internet which allows the public to obtain relevant information for each offender by a single query; and (2) ensure that updated information about an offender is immediately transmitted by electronic forwarding to all relevant jurisdictions.
Section 121 -
Requires each jurisdiction to make available and readily accessible on the Internet all information about each offender in the registry, except for the offender's Social Security number, the victim's identity, and any other information exempted by the Attorney General. Makes an exception for information about an offender required to register for committing a misdemeanor sex offense against a minor who has attained age 16.
< Click here to contact Congressman Gil Gutknecht and show your support for this bill!!! >
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jan. 31 2006,10:55 pm
| Quote (GEOKARJO @ Jan. 25 2006,4:20pm) |
| I have contacted Patty Wetterling and Sue Jeffers. We Need to contact The governors office and the State Attorney Generals Office. Everyone Do Your Part. Don't let mine, Ron and Johns voice be the only ones voicing concern. Mailing Address: Office of the Governor 130 State Capitol 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 Telephone: (651) 296-3391 (800) 657-3717 Facsimile: (651) 296-2089 E-mail: tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us |
Here are some more contacts:
Minnesota Senate Committees:
Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee
Mr. Leo Foley: sen.leo.foley@senate.mn
Mr. Wesley Skoglund: sen.wes.skoglund@senate.mn
Minnesota House Committees:
Public Safety Policy and Finance Committee
Mr. Steve Smith: rep.steve.smith@house.mn
Mr. Rob Eastlund: rep.rob.eastlund@house.mn
Other Contacts:
Senator Dan Sparks sen.daniel.sparks@senate.mn
Dan Dorman rep.dan.dorman@house.mn
Jeanne Poppe rep.jeanne.poppe@house.mn
Attorney General Mike Hatch attorney.general@state.mn.us
Governor Tim Pawlenty tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us
Minnesota Sheriffs Association info@mnsheriffs.org
Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association info@mnchiefs.org
Mayor Aaron Summers mayor@city.albertlea.org
City Attorney Steve Schwab sschwab@city.albertlea.org
Jacob Wetterling Foundation info@jwf.org
The more they hear it from the better!!
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 01 2006,12:50 am
I sent an e-mail to governor pawlenty last week regarding the "sex offender migration" from Iowa into Albert Lea, and I also talked about my concern about not being notified that two sex offenders (who were convicted of crimes against a victim aged 0-13) lived only one and a half blocks away from where one of my children went to school. In my e-mail I gave details (name of school, name of offenders). The next day I received an e-mail back:Thank you for contacting Governor Pawlenty’s office with your thoughts. Because the Governor’s e-mail gets several hundred e-mail a day this reply is set up to notify you that your important message has been received.
I challenge anyone that reads this to get a response (typed,handwritten,or email) from Pawlenty that says how he feels and what should be done (about sex offender migration/better community notification/or distance sex offenders can live from a school).
I just hope someone has better luck getting through to him then I did.
Posted by TameThaTane on Feb. 01 2006,12:58 am
The reason this issue is important to me is because if I were 20 years younger growing up in todays world, I'd be dead by now. Let me give you some background...You see, I grew up with 3 sisters, no brothers. My dad ran his own business and worked 60 hours a week plus. I grew up with all girls and they were every bit my equal in everything and of course I was taught to respect them as equals.
When I was a young man over 18, I had a girlfriend who was 15 for a few months. We dated the a year while she was 16. Technically, in many states, I could have been charged and convicted of being a rapist and if it would have todays world, I probably would have. Registering as a sex offender forever, would have destroyed my life and I would have ended up committing suicide had I been forced to live under that regime and wouldn't even be here today(I know some of you would be glad about that). But the point is, I was not a sex offender in any way shape or form and have gone on with my life without any criminal record of any kind. My old girlfriend is married to a orthopedic surgeon and certainly doesn't consider herself a rape victim of any kind.
We've made the mistake of lumping these cases in with true pedophiles and that's not right. In our rush to demonize pedophiles, like in our rush to demonize meth users we destroy countless innocent lives with our zealousness.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 01 2006,9:40 am
| Quote (TameThaTane @ Feb. 01 2006,12:58am) |
| We've made the mistake of lumping these cases in with true pedophiles and that's not right. In our rush to demonize pedophiles, like in our rush to demonize meth users we destroy countless innocent lives with our zealousness. |
< Click on this to read the Meth effect on children >
< Click on this for the definition of pedophile >
If the issue of 18 year olds with 15 year olds is what stops the public from agreeing that we need to do something about the community nofication regarding sex offenders, then we need to tell our elected officials we want better community notification regarding sex offenders, But without 18 year olds that had a 15 year old girlfriend being "demonized".
Posted by repdan on Feb. 01 2006,3:29 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Feb. 01 2006,12:50am) |
| I sent an e-mail to governor pawlenty last week regarding the "sex offender migration" from Iowa into Albert Lea, and I also talked about my concern about not being notified that two sex offenders (who were convicted of crimes against a victim aged 0-13) lived only one and a half blocks away from where one of my children went to school. In my e-mail I gave details (name of school, name of offenders). The next day I received an e-mail back: Thank you for contacting Governor Pawlenty’s office with your thoughts. Because the Governor’s e-mail gets several hundred e-mail a day this reply is set up to notify you that your important message has been received. I challenge anyone that reads this to get a response (typed,handwritten,or email) from Pawlenty that says how he feels and what should be done (about sex offender migration/better community notification/or distance sex offenders can live from a school). I just hope someone has better luck getting through to him then I did. |
Just a follow up. We changed the law last year and gave the local authority to notify when an offender moves in from out of state. A person from Iowa has 5 days to register when they move, the local office can then treat them like a level 2 and notify. If they believe the person to be of a greater risk they can ask the DOC to do a risk assement which could result in them having a level class.
I did speak to the person who is crafting some policy changes in this area for the Gov. I think you will see him propose some changes. But there are some counter intuative things that have to be taken into account. Stable housing and empolyment are key to not reoffending, increased notifacation results in less stable housing and employment which will increase reoffending, so the question is what level results in the least amount of reoffending.
Also part of last years bill, was more money to track down level 3's. We are down to only 2 who we can't find. One is in Mexico and the other is believed to be living out of state.
Again, I think we have to ask what is the goal. If it is keeping people safe, one good way would be to spend more dollars on agents to track down and monitior offenders.
Posted by The Game on Feb. 01 2006,4:12 pm
Dan, if the law was changed and Local Law Enforcement officials CAN notify the local community, why then are Cheif Winkles hands tied as far as telling the public. Did he not know of the change or did the offenders who moved to the state not get classified by Minnesota standards and classifications? I still think a central area of posting such as the LE center and the City offices would help in having an informed public. 3's and 2's get lcoal area notifications and all the ohters including 1's get posted at the LE Center and City offices.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Feb. 01 2006,7:53 pm
I think that the new law should be written where Level 1 and 2 offenders should have the info easily available at the LE center. The way the law reads now Level 2 offender notification is to Daycare centers and Schools in the neighborhood the offender will be living in and this is fine as I see it. The level 3 offenders are an entire neighborhood notification and again this is a good thing. The lapse here is that 2 convicted sexual felons whose victims were UNDER the age of 13 are living within a stones throw of a prime excuse for a reoffense but this time in MN and not IA. As I stated before these 2 should be classified as Level 3, in my opinion only, due to the age of their victims. Personally with my old fashioned backwoods country raising the old Charlie Daniels song "SIMPLE MAN" comes to mind where these 2 and others of their ilk are concerned. We need a system where people who have been convicted of a sexual offense are classified according to age of the victim and/or nature of the offense. No this doesn't include taking a pee in the alley next to the Nasty or behind Eddies either. Anyone who gets caught doing that shouldn't be in the same category as these 2. (I know unfortunately they are as the law stands now) Nor should this include an 18 year old HS senior going at it in the back seat of his car with his 15 year old Freshman girlfriend either. Let Mom and Dad handle that one.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 01 2006,8:06 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Feb. 01 2006,3:29pm) |
| Also part of last years bill, was more money to track down level 3's. We are down to only 2 who we can't find. One is in Mexico and the other is believed to be living out of state. Again, I think we have to ask what is the goal. If it is keeping people safe, one good way would be to spend more dollars on agents to track down and monitior offenders. |
Can you get any numbers on how many level 2 and level 1 sex offenders that the state can't find? That is good news if only two level 3's are unaccounted for. I see on the news once and a while how so many level 3's are unaccounted for in different states. I might not be happy with the job Minnesota is doing with community notification of sex offenders, but I am very happy to hear they are keeping track of Level 3's.
Please post the numbers on how many level 2's and level 1's are missing in Minnesota.
and maybe you could post the names of the two missing level 3's?
Posted by repdan on Feb. 01 2006,9:21 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Feb. 01 2006,8:06pm) | ||
Can you get any numbers on how many level 2 and level 1 sex offenders that the state can't find? That is good news if only two level 3's are unaccounted for. I see on the news once and a while how so many level 3's are unaccounted for in different states. I might not be happy with the job Minnesota is doing with community notification of sex offenders, but I am very happy to hear they are keeping track of Level 3's. Please post the numbers on how many level 2's and level 1's are missing in Minnesota. and maybe you could post the names of the two missing level 3's? |
I will get the info.
If I remember right, there are 6 level ones, who's last known address was freeborn county, but this group does tend to move around so the higher number is not surprising.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 02 2006,2:02 pm
Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool (MnSOST)"The MnSOST (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1997), which was developed in response to the sexual predator laws in Minnesota, is designed to help identify the most violent offenders and those offenders most likely to reoffend. The evaluator rates the person on 21 items that are given different scores and then ranks the inmate's dangerousness on a scale of 1 to 10. The MnSOST is used to screen inmates for possible referral for civil commitment as well as for determination of the person's community notification risk level. The validity scale sample consisted of 256 Minnesota sex offenders released from prison between 1988 and 1993. Sex offenders arrested for a subsequent sex offense had higher mean scores than those who were not. The authors state that with a cut off point of 47 and above, 41 of the 66 offenders (62%) who had these scores were arrested for a subsequent sex offense. Since the base rate for rearrest for the entire sample was 41%, the authors state that the MnSOST provides a 50% improvement over chance in prediction of rearrest."
REPDAN: When you are checking on the numbers of level 1's and level 2's unaccounted for in Minnesota maybe you could find if this is still the current way sex offenders are ranked?
What kind of items are they actually ranked on?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 02 2006,8:47 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Jan. 28 2006,9:11pm) | ||
Please ask them what has happened to the number of them that no longer register and how they track the people who give them a false address. Also, ask for any data they have showing this has helped reduce the number of sex crime committed against children. It would be interesting to know if people working in corrections and law enforcement pushed for this. Do you think we would be safer with a law like this? If people comply, we are going to end up with more of them moving out of the metro area and into Greater Minnesota. The DOC has drawn the map and there is little if any place they could live in Minneapolis or the suburbs. Anyone know if there is a positive corralation between living by a school and more likely to reoffend? I understand peoples reactions, if I use only me heart, I get it. But any changes we push for should be done so to improve condiations. |
here is part of an e-mail someone I know received from Jackson Township of New Jersey. Jackson Township is the city that passed a city ordinance preventing sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of schools, daycares and other places.
From a public safety standpoint, this ordinance is
extremely valuable as it provides the Police
Department with the ability to not only monitor the
locations (via the registration process) where
registered sex offenders are residing, but it also
provides us with an avenue of enforcement in order to
attempt to prevent registered sex offenders from
taking up residence in locations that we consider to
be to close to areas frequented by the juvenile
population of our community. Obviously, if a "sex
offender" fails to register as required by state law
and local ordinance, we are at a loss to enforce the
provisions of the law until such time as the offenders
presence in the community becomes known to the
Department through whatever means.
The message was a lot longer so I did not post the whole message. To answer one of your questions REPDAN, the ordinance has only been in effect since 2005 so the city said they did not have enough information on if sex crimes have declined. To answer another one of your questions-"It would be interesting to know if people working in corrections and law enforcement pushed for this."
The message was from a member of the Jackson Township Police Department.
A seperate question someone I know asked them was "has the city seen economic growth since the ordinance was passed?" The answer given was Jackson Township is a city of about 50,000 people that is definetely growing.
The way it sounds, this city ordinance is good for the safety of the children, and for the economic growth of the city.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 03 2006,4:15 pm
First the community learns about two sex offenders living close to Hawthorne School. Now we learn about another person who was in possession of child porn that lives near a daycare.What will be next?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 03 2006,10:10 pm
Don't forget to vote on the sex offender poll so we can see how the community feels about this issue.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 04 2006,12:03 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Feb. 02 2006,8:47pm) | ||||
here is part of an e-mail someone I know received from Jackson Township of New Jersey. Jackson Township is the city that passed a city ordinance preventing sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of schools, daycares and other places. From a public safety standpoint, this ordinance is extremely valuable as it provides the Police Department with the ability to not only monitor the locations (via the registration process) where registered sex offenders are residing, but it also provides us with an avenue of enforcement in order to attempt to prevent registered sex offenders from taking up residence in locations that we consider to be to close to areas frequented by the juvenile population of our community. Obviously, if a "sex offender" fails to register as required by state law and local ordinance, we are at a loss to enforce the provisions of the law until such time as the offenders presence in the community becomes known to the Department through whatever means. The message was a lot longer so I did not post the whole message. To answer one of your questions REPDAN, the ordinance has only been in effect since 2005 so the city said they did not have enough information on if sex crimes have declined. To answer another one of your questions-"It would be interesting to know if people working in corrections and law enforcement pushed for this." The message was from a member of the Jackson Township Police Department. A seperate question someone I know asked them was "has the city seen economic growth since the ordinance was passed?" The answer given was Jackson Township is a city of about 50,000 people that is definetely growing. The way it sounds, this city ordinance is good for the safety of the children, and for the economic growth of the city. |
Don't take this wrong, but on one side you have a know a guy that got an email vs my conversations with the MN DOC, our local police, and the person who doe the Iowa notices who all say that the impact of the 2000 foot rule will be to force more of them into Greater Minnesota. Have you found any positve coralation to keeping kides safer?
Part of what is happening is it is hard for normal people to think like a level 3, what seems logical to you and I may not seem logical to them.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Feb. 04 2006,12:14 pm
| Quote |
| Part of what is happening is it is hard for normal people to think like a level 3, what seems logical to you and I may not seem logical to them. |
I agree, with criminals that commit crimes like this, it can be pretty difficult to try and think like them.
Posted by allergic to bogus on Feb. 04 2006,1:15 pm
These are just a few of the questions that I come up with when I hear of the 3 levels of pedophiles. Not that I expect anyone on the forum to know all the answers. Just questions that perhaps Rep Dan could know that statues to. What psychological evaluations determine the likeliness to reoffend? Is this anything like the escalating occurance of peeping toms who take it one step further each time until they rape the victim? I do have a bit of experience with people and their experiences of molestation and am aware of the fact that most of the pediphiles were indeed themselves victims of this heinous act themselves at one time. Any input?
Posted by repdan on Feb. 04 2006,3:09 pm
The DOC does the risk assessment upon release. On Feb 20th at 7 pm at the high school, the doc will be here to explain the law and what they do.Jackson Township New Jersey is not Albert Lea it is urban suburban area.
I think I have not done a good job trying to explain the 2000 feet deal. First, if I really thought it would keep kids safer I would be all over it. Second, lets back up. In Iowa the law was proposed by folks in the urban core. Why? Like Minnesota they have a high concentration of sex offenders, drawn there by low rent and other things. The motive for the law was not to keep them away from schools but to get them out of town.
So, someone help me understand how we would be safer having more of them in our area? Twin Lakes, Hayward, Clarks Grove, Conger and some parts of the City of Albert Lea.
I have found no link to living near a school are being more likely to reoffend.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Feb. 04 2006,5:54 pm
Dan since I am the one who seemed to get this ball rolling in the public arena, thanks to Cheeba's post of the link, I would like to provide some input at the meeting on the 20th. Thanks for updating the info as well. As for the 2,000 feet from a school law and the fact that it chases them out of the urban areas I do not dispute that at all. What I would like to see is more communication between the LE of the area these criminals move into as well as a tightening of MN's laws to make it somewhat more unpleasant for them to move here from places such as IA. I don't think a copy of IA's laws regarding this subject is the way to do it but perhaps a new version of the classification that MN currently uses. I will bring this up at the meeting on the 20th and judging from what people have been telling me off the street they too are in agreement that something needs to be done. What that is remains to be seen but hopefully it will be to the benefit of the public and the dismay of those sex offenders who are preparing to maybe move to SE Minnesota from other states.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 04 2006,9:24 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Feb. 04 2006,3:09pm) |
| I have found no link to living near a school are being more likely to reoffend. |
You think it is ok for sex offenders (whose victims were age 0-13) to live less then 2 blocks from a school. (let me correct that, you don't see any relation between living close to a school and reoffending)
I didn't want to so I researched extensively, but so far I have to agree with you about not finding a link between living near a school and being more likely to reoffend (when I find one I will be very quick to share the information)
As a parent I think "better safe then sorry", so I wish the state of Minnesota had laws preventing it.
We both have the power to try and change the laws.
I am only a citizen, you are a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives. Your power to try and change the laws is much greater.
If you won't propose a bill regarding where a sex offender can live, would you be willing to propose a bill regarding better community notification of where sex offenders are living?
PARENTS, GRANDPARENTS, AND SCHOOLS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW!!!
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 05 2006,9:40 pm
Are people just talking here or are they actually trying to do something about the sex offender situation in Minnesota?I didn't know Minnesota was so easy on these kinds of people. I am going to tell all my friends and family be more careful with their children because they might not have a clue who the neighbors really are!!
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 05 2006,10:00 pm
| Quote (TheTruth @ Feb. 05 2006,9:40pm) |
| Are people just talking here or are they actually trying to do something about the sex offender situation in Minnesota? I didn't know Minnesota was so easy on these kinds of people. I am going to tell all my friends and family be more careful with their children because they might not have a clue who the neighbors really are!! |
besides telling your friends and family, do your part to contact your politicians (governor, attorney general, senator, representative)
Governors office:Telephone: (651) 296-3391 or
1(800) 657-3717
Attorney General:(651) 296-3353 or
1-800-657-3787
Speaker of the House
Steve Sviggum:(651) 296-2273
House Majority Leader
Erik Paulsen: (651) 296-7449
Senate Majority Leader
Dean johnson: (651) 296-3826
Senate Assistant Majority Leader
Ann Rest: (651) 296-2889
Dan Sparks: (651) 296-9248
Posted by Liberal on Feb. 05 2006,11:18 pm
I wonder if we can do anything about the estimated 12,000 sex offenders that are not assigned a risk level because they were only sentenced to probation, time in a county jail, or released from prison prior to 1997. With 12,000 unevaluated offenders statistically there could be as many as 350 level 3 offenders that are living in Minnesota in complete anonymity, and the state is apparently worried about tracking down the last 2 that they know about.
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 06 2006,11:22 am
| Quote (Liberal @ Feb. 05 2006,11:18pm) |
| I wonder if we can do anything about the estimated 12,000 sex offenders that are not assigned a risk level because they were only sentenced to probation, time in a county jail, or released from prison prior to 1997. With 12,000 unevaluated offenders statistically there could be as many as 350 level 3 offenders that are living in Minnesota in complete anonymity, and the state is apparently worried about tracking down the last 2 that they know about. |
don't forget the 6 level ones missing whose last known address was Freeborn County according to "REPDAN"
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 06 2006,8:19 pm
I found a city in South Dakota on the Iowa/South Dakota border that passed a city ordinance to stop the migration of sex offenders from Iowa into their city , does anyone know of any cities in Minnesota that have done this yet?or any other states?
I have found a couple cities in other states already
, anyone know of any cities that have passed city ordinances regarding sex offenders?
Posted by FlyguyAL on Feb. 06 2006,9:15 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Feb. 06 2006,8:19pm) |
| I found a city in South Dakota on the Iowa/South Dakota border that passed a city ordinance to stop the migration of sex offenders from Iowa into their city |
What is the name of this city? Is there any link you can provide to more info?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 06 2006,9:50 pm
| Quote (FlyguyAL @ Feb. 06 2006,9:15pm) | ||
What is the name of this city? Is there any link you can provide to more info? |
Ordinance 9.24
The police department for the city I found it in faxed me a copy of it. anyone that wants a copy of it let me know (maybe someone with a scanner so I can post it that way).
Posted by repdan on Feb. 07 2006,10:47 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Feb. 04 2006,9:24pm) | ||
You think it is ok for sex offenders (whose victims were age 0-13) to live less then 2 blocks from a school. (let me correct that, you don't see any relation between living close to a school and reoffending) I didn't want to so I researched extensively, but so far I have to agree with you about not finding a link between living near a school and being more likely to reoffend (when I find one I will be very quick to share the information) As a parent I think "better safe then sorry", so I wish the state of Minnesota had laws preventing it. We both have the power to try and change the laws. I am only a citizen, you are a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives. Your power to try and change the laws is much greater. If you won't propose a bill regarding where a sex offender can live, would you be willing to propose a bill regarding better community notification of where sex offenders are living? PARENTS, GRANDPARENTS, AND SCHOOLS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW!!! |
I think you need to know and understand the risks. 80% of the people convicted of a sex crime are 1st time offenders.
The problem I have with the Iowa law is that it was not intened to keep people away from schools, it was designed to get them out of the urban cores. Think about how the people in MPLS and St. Paul feel about having so many of them in their community.
When I see elected officals pushing for changes that sound good, but really do little if anything, and may cause harm, I get concerned.
Keep in mind, Minnesota changed it's laws last year on people moving in, the local officals can now notify like they are level 2's and request the DOC to do a risk assesment if they think it is warrented.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 07 2006,10:50 am
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Feb. 04 2006,5:54pm) |
| Dan since I am the one who seemed to get this ball rolling in the public arena, thanks to Cheeba's post of the link, I would like to provide some input at the meeting on the 20th. Thanks for updating the info as well. As for the 2,000 feet from a school law and the fact that it chases them out of the urban areas I do not dispute that at all. What I would like to see is more communication between the LE of the area these criminals move into as well as a tightening of MN's laws to make it somewhat more unpleasant for them to move here from places such as IA. I don't think a copy of IA's laws regarding this subject is the way to do it but perhaps a new version of the classification that MN currently uses. I will bring this up at the meeting on the 20th and judging from what people have been telling me off the street they too are in agreement that something needs to be done. What that is remains to be seen but hopefully it will be to the benefit of the public and the dismay of those sex offenders who are preparing to maybe move to SE Minnesota from other states. |
sounds good. You will be able to ask questions of the DOC and the local officials. If you have something you want to ask, or an idea that you want addressed, let me know so I can ask the DOC to be prepared.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 07 2006,11:41 am
| Quote (repdan @ Feb. 07 2006,10:47am) | ||||
I think you need to know and understand the risks. 80% of the people convicted of a sex crime are 1st time offenders. The problem I have with the Iowa law is that it was not intened to keep people away from schools, it was designed to get them out of the urban cores. Think about how the people in MPLS and St. Paul feel about having so many of them in their community. When I see elected officals pushing for changes that sound good, but really do little if anything, and may cause harm, I get concerned. Keep in mind, Minnesota changed it's laws last year on people moving in, the local officals can now notify like they are level 2's and request the DOC to do a risk assesment if they think it is warrented. |
You have made it very clear that you don't want any change in the laws regarding where sex offenders can live. You have made it very clear that you don't think the State of Minnesota should pass a law preventing sex offenders (some sex offenders are pedophiles) from living near schools/daycares.
I have asked before and I am asking again.
Would you please put together a law requiring better community notification? Or can you share with us some reasons why we shouldn't need better community notification?
You say 80% of people convicted of sex crimes are first time offenders. We need better community notification so we can help prevent the other 20% from happening.
A community that is more aware is a community that is more safe!!
Posted by repdan on Feb. 07 2006,12:16 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Feb. 07 2006,11:41am) | ||||||
You have made it very clear that you don't want any change in the laws regarding where sex offenders can live. You have made it very clear that you don't think the State of Minnesota should pass a law preventing sex offenders (some sex offenders are pedophiles) from living near schools/daycares. I have asked before and I am asking again. Would you please put together a law requiring better community notification? Or can you share with us some reasons why we shouldn't need better community notification? You say 80% of people convicted of sex crimes are first time offenders. We need better community notification so we can help prevent the other 20% from happening. A community that is more aware is a community that is more safe!! |
Again, slow down...I am trying to keep an open mind and we might want to make changes. But I want to make sure the changes are going to improve the situation. For example, I think there might be good reason to list the level 2's like we do the 3's. But I "think" listing the level ones may not help. 1) as a group this may impact stable employment and housing and increase the re offending rate. 2) people may become de sensatized to the list and not focus enough on the3's (this is why Iowa changed their law last year).
Posted by Wareagle11B on Feb. 07 2006,2:47 pm
Dan your points are all valid. The last thing any of us would want is to allow any of these people to move to a new locale and never notify the local LE that they are going to move to that jurisdiction prior to or even after they move. In my opinion better community notification and perhaps a better standard of classification is the answer. Again I have some ideas and I will bring them up to the DOC people at the meeting.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 08 2006,11:44 am
| Quote (repdan @ Feb. 07 2006,12:16pm) | ||||||||
Again, slow down...I am trying to keep an open mind and we might want to make changes. But I want to make sure the changes are going to improve the situation. For example, I think there might be good reason to list the level 2's like we do the 3's. But I "think" listing the level ones may not help. 1) as a group this may impact stable employment and housing and increase the re offending rate. 2) people may become de sensatized to the list and not focus enough on the3's (this is why Iowa changed their law last year). |
I think as a parent and my first reaction to the thought of sex offenders living in the community my children live makes my blood boil with anger.
If I had my way pedophile sex offenders would be locked up forever with no chance ever of being free.
I know things won't happen that way, so I need to think rationally. I need to look at all sides of the issue. I need to research what laws actually do improve the situation.
So I ask REPDAN:
If I research extensively (or maybe other organizations already are) and can show you documented information that tougher restrictions (such as better community notification) do a very good job of preventing children from being victimized by pedophiles. Would you be willing to put the information together and bring it to the House for vote?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 08 2006,9:18 pm
Burl. City ordinance bans sex offenders from townBy LAURI SHEIBLEY
Burlington County Times
BURLINGTON CITY — Starting next month, registered sex offenders will no longer be permitted to move into Burlington City and any sex offender who rents a home or apartment must move out.
The City Council approved an ordinance Tuesday that prohibits registered sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of any school, park or playground. That effectively bans them from residing within city limits.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 08 2006,9:24 pm
and another one from www.kvia.com:City, PD Looking into Ordinance Prohibiting Sex Offenders from Living near Schools
EL PASO, TX - Keeping sex offenders away from schools could get easier for police if a proposed ordnance is approved.
The El Paso Police Department is working on a new ordinance to make sure sex offenders can not live anywhere near a school. The ordinance was drafted by the EPPD's Sex Offender Registration and Tracking Unit.
Parents of Mesita Elementary School know first-hand the dangers of a convicted sex offender living just down the street from their children's school. Marco Robles, a convicted sex offender was found to be living in a home right across the street from Mesita Elementary school.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 08 2006,9:29 pm
and another one from WCF Courier:Dyersville May Ban Sex Offenders Completely
December 6, 2005
Dyersville, Iowa might bring the sex offender dilemma to new heights, as officials deliberate an ordinance that would ban sex offenders from living anywhere within city limits.
Current Iowa state law, implemented in 2002, restricts sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools or day cares. Several cities across the state have extended this ban to enough public places to essentially restrict sex offenders from living in the city at all, but Dyersville is the first to propose a straightforward ban on offenders.
Opponents of the ordinance site the difficulty of enforcing such a law, and declare that the rise in local ordinances has practically made the entire state of Iowa off-limits to sex offenders. Others are concerned with the false sense of security that having no registered sex offenders living within city limits might create.
Iowa officials assert that if instated, the ban will send a clear message of non-tolerance to potential sex offenders and likely re-offenders.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Feb. 08 2006,9:49 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Feb. 08 2006,9:18pm) |
| Burl. City ordinance bans sex offenders from town By LAURI SHEIBLEY Burlington County Times BURLINGTON CITY — Starting next month, registered sex offenders will no longer be permitted to move into Burlington City and any sex offender who rents a home or apartment must move out. The City Council approved an ordinance Tuesday that prohibits registered sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of any school, park or playground. That effectively bans them from residing within city limits. |
Preemptive this is only half the story. Not to slam on you but where do these offenders go now and do they register with local LE or do they just go into hiding where they become even more dangerous? These are reasons that Dan is saying more research and thought is needed before we bring in the torches and pitchforks. I like this less than you do because I live quite close to the 2 near Hawthorne and I am by far very uncomfortable with them being so close and me not knowing. Let's work on this together as level headed people and not go off half cocked.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 08 2006,10:50 pm
I think we will also have someone at the meeting from the Wetterling Foundation. Given the way you frame the question, yes is the answer. Why would anyone answer no?
Posted by repdan on Feb. 08 2006,10:59 pm
http://www.doc.state.mn.us/level3/SearchResults.asp?SearchType=NonCompliantSomeone had asked about the 2 missing levels 3's.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 09 2006,1:27 am
WareagleI know it is a long shot trying to ban sex offenders (specifically pedophiles) from living near schools/daycares, but I like putting the information out their so people know that some communities are handling it on the city level. People have a right to know what other cities are doing to protect children, just like we (parents) have a right to know when pedophiles live in our community.
I think if "H.R. 3132: Children's Safety Act of 2005" passes the Senate all of our issues regarding community notification will be taken care of. I am still waiting for the JWF and some politicians to get back to me so I can verify my interpretation of the act. The way it sounds Federal Law will help us as a community protect our children.
Like I said before "I think as a parent and my first reaction to the thought of sex offenders living in the community my children live makes my blood boil with anger".
I only want society to take every step it can to prevent children from being victims of a pedophile.
Most of the laws regarding where sex offenders can live and community notification are fairly new so it is very hard to find data on those subjects.
Some of the feedback I am finding in my research is that if a pedophile thinks about the consequences (less available housing, community notification) they might stop themselves from committing the deviant act.
I will think level headed now and share the other feedback I am finding in my research. When a pedophile goes into isolation because of community notification they might be more likely to reoffend because of lack of treatment.
Are you having any luck finding information on what laws work, and what laws don't work? "Let's work on this together"
I would really like to hear anything you are finding out.
You are right, I do get a "torches and pitchforks" mentality sometimes when I think of pedophiles. I know some people very well who were affected by a pedophile and I don't want anyone to have to go through what their families had to go through. No child should ever have to be a victim of a pedophile.
and to answer one of your questions:
where do these offenders go now and do they register with local LE or do they just go into hiding? I bet alot of them go into hiding and that is probably why some states are proposing GPS tracking.
Think about this though:
What about the 6 level ones REPDAN mentioned that their last known address was Freeborn County? They were not banned from living close to a school, and their pictures were not posted on the internet (and they still went into hiding, or forgot to notifiy the authorities they moved).
Thank You for saying "Let's work on this together"
I think we both want alot of the same thing.
I am pretty sure we are on the same page in regards to a better community notification system, and a better classification system.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 09 2006,7:31 am
I hope we are all on the same page there. It does seem we have different goals. If I understand your posts a good outcome would be better community notification and laws concerning where they can and can't live, no matter what the outcome of this may be. I start by thinking we should review our system and find out if changes would make our kids safer. Last year, we made several changes in St. Paul, and I think we will do so again. There are now fewer and fewer level 2 and 3 types that ever get out. The local police can now notify up to a level 2 if someone moves in from out of state.
We need to be open and learn from the expierence of other states. The fact that in Iowa the number of people not reporting has doubled since they passed the 2000 feet law should concern us all. But using this as an example, what we have to weight is this, is the positive gain offest by the negative impact of the change.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Feb. 09 2006,2:55 pm
I am finding in talking to the "normal" everyday person on the street that they too are concerned that nobody was aware of these 3 are living close to not just 1 but 2 of our local Elementary schools. They are all in agreement that something needs to be done to make people more aware and to keep Iowa's offenders from moving here because our laws appear less restrictive. What works elsewhere does not always work in a new location unless you modify the plan and/or law. What concerns me most Pre is that the articles you posted only gave 1/2 the story. What I am curious to know is if these laws went into effect what sort of impact did it have on the overall picture. Did more of these deviants go into hiding or did the rate of reporting stay the same or get better?
I am not against letting these people have a life after they are released as long as the laws they have to abide by are followed. I do not like it that 2 of them live so close to me and the school my daughter attends. She walks that street EVERYDAY so yes I am concerned. As for the "pitchforks and torches" mentality I do not blame you one bit but always keep in mind that level headed thinking gets better results. (It is also less likely to land you in jail
) Keep up the good work Pre and don't let the fire die just keep it in check. If it becomes necessary I will be right beside you with my own pitchfork and torch. 
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 09 2006,3:32 pm
I will have a cleaner copy later.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 09 2006,4:27 pm
Let me help ya out.NEWS RELEASE
DORMAN TO HOST PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING ON MINNESOTA PREDATORY OFFENDER REGISTRY
ST. PAUL – State Representative Dan Dorman (R-Albert Lea) and the Albert Lea Police Department will host a community-wide public information meeting on the Minnesota Predatory Offender Registry, Monday, February 20, at 7:00 p.m. at the Albert Lea High School auditorium.
Representatives from the state’s Predatory Offender Unit will be on hand to educate those in attendance regarding Minnesota’s predatory offender law and registration requirements. Also on the agenda for the meeting will be a presentation on personal safety. A panel will be available after the meeting for a question and answer session that will focus on written question submitted by audience members.
The panel will also include members of the Albert Lea Police Department, Freeborn County Sheriff’s office, the Freeborn County Attornery, and a representative from the Wetterling Foundation.
“I feel it’s equally as important for the public to understand the predatory offender registry as it is for offenders to comply with the law,” Dorman said. “Knowledge is power, and we want to do everything we can to make sure the public is educated and armed with that power.”
If people have specific concerns or ideas that they would like to have addressed they can e-mail Rep. Dorman at rep.dan.dorman@house.mn or call him at 507-377-9441.
Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 09 2006,4:50 pm
I heard Steve Oman telling listeners about it this afternoon on KATE. Good for both wareagle and repdan.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 09 2006,5:15 pm
Thanks Dan.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Feb. 09 2006,7:36 pm
Yes Thanks Dan and Thanks to Cheeba for getting that link and Mad Mutt yours is appreciated too.
Posted by The Game on Feb. 09 2006,7:43 pm
The press release was also mentioned to my audience this afternoon and is posted on todays rant at the website. I have been a bit silent on the issue in here, but thats only because I have been working on this very issue in a different arena. It is not just a local problem, but I will be at the meeting on the 20th and youll see something very soon. Cheeba, again thanks for the link, War... Glad ya spoke to the city that night and the news folks. Dan, Great effort on this and I enjoy our conversations.
Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 09 2006,8:39 pm
Sorry, Mr. Game, I listened to you yesterday, and Steve today. (Liked hearing "Stranglehold" too.) Wareagle, LOL.
| Quote |
| and Mad Mutt yours is appreciated too. |
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 09 2006,9:59 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Feb. 09 2006,2:55pm) |
| I am finding in talking to the "normal" everyday person on the street that they too are concerned that nobody was aware of these 3 are living close to not just 1 but 2 of our local Elementary schools |
During the city council meeting Police Chief Winkels stated that State Statutes prevent the Police Department from discussing Iowa convictions publicly.
After you brought it up at the city council meeting I asked the city manager after the meeting was over about what can be done and she said "My children go to school at Hawthorne and I didn't know about it"
I went to Hawthorne the day after the city council meeting and spoke with the principal and was told by the principal that she didn't know about it until the day before. The principal found out probably the day before courtesy of you Wareagle.
The police chief can't talk about it. The city manager has children going to Hawthorne and she didn't know. The principal did not know. Other parents did not know. It took a concerned parent (thats you Wareagle
) to bring it to the community's attention.This is something I was going to bring up at the high school on the 20th, but I wanted to hear your input (and other people's input) first.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 10 2006,10:40 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Feb. 09 2006,9:59pm) | ||
During the city council meeting Police Chief Winkels stated that State Statutes prevent the Police Department from discussing Iowa convictions publicly. After you brought it up at the city council meeting I asked the city manager after the meeting was over about what can be done and she said "My children go to school at Hawthorne and I didn't know about it" I went to Hawthorne the day after the city council meeting and spoke with the principal and was told by the principal that she didn't know about it until the day before. The principal found out probably the day before courtesy of you Wareagle. The police chief can't talk about it. The city manager has children going to Hawthorne and she didn't know. The principal did not know. Other parents did not know. It took a concerned parent (thats you Wareagle ) to bring it to the community's attention.This is something I was going to bring up at the high school on the 20th, but I wanted to hear your input (and other people's input) first. |
The Chief can talk about it, my impression is that since they moved into Albert Lea before the law change that he could not. But he can. This law was changed in July as a response to people moving in from out of state.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 10 2006,3:23 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Feb. 10 2006,10:40am) |
The Chief can talk about it, my impression is that since they moved into Albert Lea before the law change that he could not. But he can. This law was changed in July as a response to people moving in from out of state. |
I was only quoting what the Chief said from the city council minutes.
Here is the link:< city council meeting >
(scroll down to the public items, fourth paragraph)
Posted by The Game on Feb. 10 2006,4:15 pm
Why not to go off half cocked. And fact check. Also had a great meeting with folks today, please be at the meeting on Monday Night at the High School.
'Sex Offender' Sign On Wrong House
Officials in Benton County say a woman hung a sign on a neighbor's door warning people that the man who lives in the Bella Vista home is a sex offender. Sheriff's deputies say she had the wrong house. The sign said "Don't play here. Child molester lives here."
Carolyn Hansen of Bella Vista told officials she just wanted to protect her grandchildren.
Officials say Hansen got second-hand information that included an incorrect address about a sex offender who moved to the neighborhood. Not only did Hansen hang signs at the wrong house, but she also included the incorrect address in fliers she distributed at a park.
Deputies caught her and told her she was using bad information. Officials say Hansen apologized to the man she wrongly accused.
Deputies say sex offender information is used to protect children but the information cannot be used as a method of harassment.
The man whose house Hansen targeted declined to pursue charges.
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 10 2006,4:59 pm
| Quote (The Game @ Feb. 10 2006,4:15pm) |
| Why not to go off half cocked. And fact check. Also had a great meeting with folks today, please be at the meeting on Monday Night at the High School. 'Sex Offender' Sign On Wrong House Officials in Benton County say a woman hung a sign on a neighbor's door warning people that the man who lives in the Bella Vista home is a sex offender. Sheriff's deputies say she had the wrong house. The sign said "Don't play here. Child molester lives here." Carolyn Hansen of Bella Vista told officials she just wanted to protect her grandchildren. Officials say Hansen got second-hand information that included an incorrect address about a sex offender who moved to the neighborhood. Not only did Hansen hang signs at the wrong house, but she also included the incorrect address in fliers she distributed at a park. Deputies caught her and told her she was using bad information. Officials say Hansen apologized to the man she wrongly accused. Deputies say sex offender information is used to protect children but the information cannot be used as a method of harassment. The man whose house Hansen targeted declined to pursue charges. |
I think this is why we need better community notification so people don't go on rumors. If somone could go to a website, the police department, or somewhere else "official" to the get this kind of information mistakes like this would not happen.
I think anytime the victim was a child, or the victim was any age in a violent rape the public should be able to know what neighborhoods these offenders live in.
I know some people want to ban them from living in Albert Lea, some people want to ban them from living near schools and daycares, some people don't want to ban them from living anywhere, but can everybody agree on better notification is the one thing we really need?
That way people won't make mistakes like the one mentioned in Benton County, and the public will have a tool to help protect children.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 10 2006,10:05 pm
Here is a link that if you read far enough into it you will see what kind of law George Bush passed as governor regarding sex offenders, and alot of opinions from people doing research on pedophiles including the recidivism rate of sexual offenders.< Texas Gov. George Bush signed the law >
Posted by Madd Max on Feb. 11 2006,5:14 am
Nice story game looks like someone is listening. < http://www.startribune.com/462/story/240329.html >
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 11 2006,8:02 am
This is for the Game:Thank You
Thanks for going that extra mile with this issue!!!
Now it will have the statewide attention it needed!!!
Posted by RET on Feb. 11 2006,8:43 am
The Game made the Startribune today. Interesting read. < http://www.startribune.com/462/story/240329.html >
Posted by Botto 82 on Feb. 11 2006,10:46 am
Excellent work!
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 11 2006,11:14 am
The article pretty much sums up what you are going to hear on the 20th| Quote |
| Let me know how it goes, when we had ours here, we needed cops directing traffic and they had so many people we had to park a mile away. People come out in droves and they try to calm everyone down while saying there is nothing that can be done, they have served their time. They might let some people ask questions but not many. The parole officer gave everyone his cell phone number, I pulled out my cell phone and called it and guess what, it was turned off. I asked how can his cell phone number will help us if we can't get ahold of him. I have mentioned your situation several times and no one can tell me what Iowa did that has sent them all here. Any ideas yet? Keep me posted. Sue |
Posted by REPOMAN on Feb. 11 2006,1:04 pm
| Quote (GEOKARJO @ Feb. 11 2006,11:14am) | ||
The article pretty much sums up what you are going to hear on the 20th
|
I am glad the community is pulling together to handle this problem...
George - let us know when "Second Hand Sue" will be in AL to tackle all of the tough issues of the day - especially the smoking ban...
Posted by Botto 82 on Feb. 11 2006,1:33 pm
The smoking ban will be a statewide thing by the end of the decade.Next...
Posted by REPOMAN on Feb. 11 2006,4:36 pm
| Quote (Botto 82 @ Feb. 11 2006,1:33pm) |
| The smoking ban will be a statewide thing by the end of the decade. Next... |
I hope so...
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 11 2006,4:39 pm
I wonder if the DOC uses the same system they used when they released Alfonso Rodriguez Jr? and Joseph Duncan?
Also here is part of the Evaluation Report Summary for the Office of the Legislative Auditor for the State Of Minnesota on the Community Supervision of Sex Offenders:
"However, most sex offenders in Minnesota communities have been sentenced to probation, not prison-and thus, they are not subject to community notification requirements under existing law."
< Click on this to see the full report (only 4 pages long) >
Posted by repdan on Feb. 11 2006,6:11 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Feb. 11 2006,4:39pm) |
| I wonder if the DOC uses the same system they used when they released Alfonso Rodriguez Jr? and Joseph Duncan? Also here is part of the Evaluation Report Summary for the Office of the Legislative Auditor for the State Of Minnesota on the Community Supervision of Sex Offenders: "However, most sex offenders in Minnesota communities have been sentenced to probation, not prison-and thus, they are not subject to community notification requirements under existing law." < Click on this to see the full report (only 4 pages long) > |
DOC did not make the decision to release. He had done he time, however, he could have been commited by either Public Safety or the local law enforcement. But, it should be pointed out, again, the laws have changed several times, including last year, since he was sentenced, I doubt any similar person would get out today.
But interesting that you bring him up? He went in to another state to attack his victim, at a mall not near a school, and she was over 18 so had she not been killed, but raped, had the happened in Iowa, when he got out he would not be on the Iowa web site.
I helped pass the laws to keep scum like him in jail longer if not forever and to make it easier to commit them after prison (don't know if Iowa does that). Do you think any amount of community notificaiton would have helped? In fact, I thought he was a level 3 which means not only was he on the web, but there would have been community meetings.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 11 2006,7:35 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Feb. 11 2006,6:11pm) |
| But interesting that you bring him up? He went in to another state to attack his victim, at a mall not near a school |
Is this a good example of how electronic monitoring could have been used to save someone's life?
If Alfonso would have been electronically monitored maybe they could have found Dru before she was dead, but more importantly wouldn't Alfonso have been tracked down as soon as he crossed state lines to prevent any of it from happening if he was electronically monitored?
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Feb. 11 2006,7:58 pm
Funny you should bring up electronic monitoring.I saw a show about a year or so ago where they did electronically monitor some offenders, kind of like a gps type tracking so you could actually see their real time movements on a map. If I remember right, at least one of them was cruising by schools when staying away from such places was part of their release conditions.
I can't remember where this took place or if it was city, county or state funded, but it's a hell of an idea, especially for second+ offenders of any sex crime. I wouldn't want to see the price tag on it though.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 11 2006,8:43 pm
"But Hunter and some lawmakers say providing broader online disclosure in Minnesota would provide citizens with a better picture of potential threats in their community."REPDAN are one of those lawmakers you?
State Rep. Dan Dorman, R-Albert Lea, said "he favors re-examining Minnesota's sex-offender Web policy during the upcoming session."
"favors re-examining" is a very safe side to take on any issue.
Think about it?
Posted by Replicant on Feb. 12 2006,12:59 pm
The AP picked up the STrib story, interesting that this weakness in state law even flew under the mighty metro newspaper's radar.Here's a link to the story off WCCO's website:
< Minnesota more restrictive than others in posting offender data >
| Quote |
| All but two states post sex-offender data online, but policies vary widely. According to Familywatchdog.us, a private online registry that compiles data from states, only Rhode Island appears to be more restrictive than Minnesota. Familywatchdog identifies 172 sex offenders living in Minnesota who are registered in other states. |
| Quote (repdan @ Jan. 25 2006,9:33pm) |
| Next you assume since the family watchdog had the info that it was not in the public somewhere, yet they just link to the Federal DOJ site and make a few bucks in the process. |
I must say I've been underwhelmed by your public statements on this issue, but you have made up for it in getting the Feb. 20 meeting to happen.
Wareagle & Game, two thumbs up for running with this. With the type of publicity this article will get statewide & regionally, you may have turned a local issue into a bigger one.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 12 2006,5:48 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Feb. 11 2006,8:43pm) |
| "But Hunter and some lawmakers say providing broader online disclosure in Minnesota would provide citizens with a better picture of potential threats in their community." REPDAN are one of those lawmakers you? State Rep. Dan Dorman, R-Albert Lea, said "he favors re-examining Minnesota's sex-offender Web policy during the upcoming session." "favors re-examining" is a very safe side to take on any issue. Think about it? |
As oppoesed to some, I don't shoot from the hip and say "that sounds like a great idea, lets pass it into law so we can go run back to our districts and say see what we did". It's not about being PC, it's about being open to change.
So here's one for you prevent, would you choose wider notification which in other states is at best 80% accurate and worst Calf at 40% accurate, or the current system?
Posted by Wareagle11B on Feb. 12 2006,6:22 pm
Dan I don't think nobody wants you to "shoot from the hip" and wind up making a bad situation worse. Hunter has made this issue more widely known which is good but in the end the results should be worthy of merit and mention nationwide as an example to other states.Again better community notification is perhaps the best way. The best way to do this I personally believe, as do others, is to have this information available at the LE center for those who wish to see it. This way we do not have a situation such as what Hunter posted earlier nor do we wind up "blindsided" by going to a website and seeing this information. I have some questions lined up for this meeting Dan and none will be of the "blindsiding" type as I have already brought them to your attention in PM.
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 12 2006,6:57 pm
I was kind of disappointed in the article in the albert lea tribune, but I was very happy with the article in the star tribune. Why is the star tribune paper bringing up the issue, but our local paper brushing it off like its no big deal?
Who makes the decisions at the Albert Lea Tribune?
here is a couple parts of the albert lea paper I am curious about?
"The issue of registered sex offenders living in Albert Lea was first raised during a Jan. 23 meeting of the Albert Lea City Council when a community member informed councilors five registered sex offenders from the state of Iowa were living in the city, several of them in close vicinity to elementary schools. That number has since grown to six."
anyone know where to look up the new one?
"In 1997, 1998 and 1999, 5 percent of all sex offenders were arrested for another sex crime. The recidivism rate for criminals at large is around 33 percent, according to McClung."
Why didn't Liz McClung quote the recidivism rate for sex offenders from recent government research?
Research studies by the US Dept. of Justice and the Canadian Government have found, however, that sexual offense recidivism rates are much lower than commonly believed, averaging between 14 and 20% over 5-year follow-up periods.
Whats really going on? Why are they trying to downplay this?
We deserve The Truth.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 12 2006,7:20 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Feb. 12 2006,5:48pm) |
| As oppoesed to some, I don't shoot from the hip and say "that sounds like a great idea, lets pass it into law so we can go run back to our districts and say see what we did". It's not about being PC, it's about being open to change. So here's one for you prevent, would you choose wider notification which in other states is at best 80% accurate and worst Calf at 40% accurate, or the current system? |
Thats why I say "favors re-examining" is a very safe side to take on any issue.
If you tell the other lawmakers we need to re-examine the sex offender situation in Minnesota, you and the other lawmakers will be able to make a sound judgement taking research, the public's opinion, and what is working in other states into consideration.
That is pretty scary "40% accurate in Calf". I am guessing that means 60% of sex offenders are not in compliance with local authorities? I am also guessing that means someone in Calf isn't doing their job?
What is the % accurate with our current system in Minnesota? (including level 1,2, & 3's)
Posted by The Game on Feb. 12 2006,8:03 pm
I didn't know the story was going to hit today, but I have been working with that reporter for the last nearly 2 weeks on this. Glad that the AP picked it up. That means it hits state wide and regional.
There is still much more to learn onthe subject and the stuff the Preemptive has posted that has been great.
This meeting on the 20th should be quite the big deal, but what is scary to me is not the re-offense rate of those we know, but the plethora of people that have not been identified and those that use the internet as their foundation to meet and abuse the children in our world.
There is no excuse for not parenting your child and giving them the knowledge and training not to talk to strangers, not to take candy and not to give out information to ANYONE on the internet. Many of the things WE take for granted, but have we done all that we can in our own homes?
Posted by The Game on Feb. 12 2006,8:15 pm
Here is a perfect example of what i mean.Internet social sites attract sexual predators
SAFETY:Teens who include information such as last names, birthdates and photos may become targets for sexual solicitation.
BY MARA GOTTFRIED
ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS
Heidi Welch's biggest worry about the family computer used to be that her kids might spend all night online. Welch and her husband dealt with their concern by creating a secret computer password that limited their children's access to the Web.
They didn't fret about Internet predators. That changed this month when their 15-year-old daughter disappeared. They quickly learned from their daughter's friends and the computer that she might have ventured out to meet a man she had met on a Web site popular with teens.
"The scenario with guys never entered my mind," said Welch of St. Paul. "I'm not dumb, I'm not naive. You just never think it's going to happen to your kid."
With teenagers increasingly turning to sites such as MySpace.com to make friends and keep in touch with pals, some adults are using the sites to solicit children for sex. The sites, which abound with teens' pictures and personal information, can be a gold mine for sexual predators, law enforcement experts say.
Welch's daughter, Abbi, returned home safely about 24 hours after she disappeared. Before leaving, the girl confided to friends that the man was coming from Kentucky to pick her up. She later told police the man didn't show up. St. Paul police are investigating the matter.
There have been similar cases recently in the Twin Cities and across the country. A Georgia man has been charged with flying to Minnesota to have sex with a 15-year-old Eagan girl whom he corresponded with onYahoo.com. In Connecticut, police are investigating seven sexual assault allegations involving MySpace, and New Jersey police are looking to see whether there is a connection between the slaying of a 14-year-old girl and a man she told friends she met onMySpace.
"It's becoming more of an area for predators to identify their potential victims, and I think it only is more so because there's more young people on these Web sites," said Cmdr. Neil Nelson, who leads the Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, based at the St. Paul Police Department. "If kids are at the malls, the predators are going to go to the malls."
While young people might be aware of "stranger danger" in situations such as malls,telephone chat lines and Internet chat rooms, the risks haven't sunk in for many spending time on the personal pages they create on social networking Web sites, Nelson said.
Part of the problem is that in today's "Jerry Springer" era, in which it seems most everyone is comfortable sharing anything, teenagers often give out too much personal information on their Web sites, Nelson said. The big no-nos, which Nelson and others say are posted all too often, include full names, phone numbers, schools and workplaces.
Schools are becoming savvy to the Web sites. Bob Schmidt, executive director of the Minnesota Association of Secondary Principals, said principals across the state are reminding parents that they should be aware of these sites.
But adults need to be involved, said Connie Fiel, St. Paul Public Schools director of educational technology. The district has blocked students from being able to access MySpace.com on computers at school since the fall. As new social networking Web sites become popular, teachers alert the district. And blocking such Web sites has become an everyday activity, Fiel said.
The Internet can be dangerous because people can pretend to be anyone they want to be, Nelson said.
"A person may claim to be a young person from another part of the country, but could be a 40-year-old child molester living down the block," he said.
There were 2,669 reports of online enticement of children for sexual acts to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's Cyber-Tipline in 2005. All told, one in five children ages 10 to 17 have received unwanted sexual solicitations online, according to a U.S. Department of Justice study.
At Stillwater Area High School, a convicted sex offender duped people when he visited the school three times and posed as a British duke who wanted to enroll. Joshua Gardner, 22, met a Stillwater student over MySpace and stayed with the teenager's family for two months.
Gardner stands accused of violating the terms of his probation. Marisa Riley, a senior and managing editor of the school newspaper, which unmasked Gardner, said the situation prompted her and other students to revise their MySpace profiles. She took off personal information such as her last name and birthday.
"These sites are a great way to connect to friends. But you always need to have in the back of your mind who might be out there," Riley said.
MySpace officials didn't respond to a request for comment, but Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp., which acquired the Web site last year, recently told Newsweek magazine the company dedicates a third of its work force to monitoring the site.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 12 2006,9:00 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Feb. 12 2006,7:20pm) | ||
Thats why I say "favors re-examining" is a very safe side to take on any issue. If you tell the other lawmakers we need to re-examine the sex offender situation in Minnesota, you and the other lawmakers will be able to make a sound judgement taking research, the public's opinion, and what is working in other states into consideration. That is pretty scary "40% accurate in Calf". I am guessing that means 60% of sex offenders are not in compliance with local authorities? I am also guessing that means someone in Calf isn't doing their job? What is the % accurate with our current system in Minnesota? (including level 1,2, & 3's) |
Good question on Minnesota, not 100% but I would make an eduacted guess of in the high 90's. In Calf. the it is 60% accurate, and that does not mean someone is not doing their job, but that they choose to spend their money doing something else. Why?, the people working in corrections and public safety don't think we get the best bang for the buck, but it does make people feel safer.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 12 2006,9:01 pm
| Quote (The Game @ Feb. 12 2006,8:03pm) |
| I didn't know the story was going to hit today, but I hae been working with that reporter for the last nearly 2 weeks on this. Glad that the AP picked it up. That means it hits state wide and regional. There is still much more to learn onthe subject and the stuff the Preemptive has posted that has been great. This meeting on the 20th should be quite the big deal, but what is scary to me is no the re-offense rate of those we know, but the plethora of people that have not been identified and those that use the internet as their foundation to meet and abuse the children in our world. There is no excuse for not parenting your child and giving them the knowledge and training not to talk to strangers, not to take candy and not to give out information to ANYONE on the internet. Many of the things WE take for granted, but have we done all that we can in our own homes? |
Amen.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 12 2006,9:07 pm
| Quote (TheTruth @ Feb. 12 2006,6:57pm) |
| I was kind of disappointed in the article in the albert lea tribune, but I was very happy with the article in the star tribune. Why is the star tribune paper bringing up the issue, but our local paper brushing it off like its no big deal? Who makes the decisions at the Albert Lea Tribune? here is a couple parts of the albert lea paper I am curious about? "The issue of registered sex offenders living in Albert Lea was first raised during a Jan. 23 meeting of the Albert Lea City Council when a community member informed councilors five registered sex offenders from the state of Iowa were living in the city, several of them in close vicinity to elementary schools. That number has since grown to six." anyone know where to look up the new one? "In 1997, 1998 and 1999, 5 percent of all sex offenders were arrested for another sex crime. The recidivism rate for criminals at large is around 33 percent, according to McClung." Why didn't Liz McClung quote the recidivism rate for sex offenders from recent government research? Research studies by the US Dept. of Justice and the Canadian Government have found, however, that sexual offense recidivism rates are much lower than commonly believed, averaging between 14 and 20% over 5-year follow-up periods. Whats really going on? Why are they trying to downplay this? We deserve The Truth. |
1999 would be 2004. 5 year follow up. I don't think they have the numbers yet for 2005, not sure how long it take but it's only Feb. So she was using the Minnesota numbers for the last 3 years, with a 5 year look back.
I don't know enough about the differences in the 2 studies to understand the differences. But the range of 14 to 20% looks odd. I wonder if it is changing that fast or what?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 12 2006,11:59 pm
Here is something to look into:I have been trying to find "official" (meaning a government agency) statistics on the recidivism rate of sexual offenders over a period of time spanning 25 years. With 25 years I mean from the date of the first conviction of an individual all the way until 25 years later.
I have found alot of private studies (schools, non-profits, etc.) that give very scary recidivism rates when you look at it over the course of 25 years.
Anyone help me out here?
Posted by Replicant on Feb. 13 2006,9:49 am
| Quote (TheTruth @ Feb. 12 2006,6:57pm) |
| I was kind of disappointed in the article in the albert lea tribune, but I was very happy with the article in the star tribune. Why is the star tribune paper bringing up the issue, but our local paper brushing it off like its no big deal? Who makes the decisions at the Albert Lea Tribune? here is a couple parts of the albert lea paper I am curious about? "The issue of registered sex offenders living in Albert Lea was first raised during a Jan. 23 meeting of the Albert Lea City Council when a community member informed councilors five registered sex offenders from the state of Iowa were living in the city, several of them in close vicinity to elementary schools. That number has since grown to six." anyone know where to look up the new one? "In 1997, 1998 and 1999, 5 percent of all sex offenders were arrested for another sex crime. The recidivism rate for criminals at large is around 33 percent, according to McClung." Why didn't Liz McClung quote the recidivism rate for sex offenders from recent government research? Research studies by the US Dept. of Justice and the Canadian Government have found, however, that sexual offense recidivism rates are much lower than commonly believed, averaging between 14 and 20% over 5-year follow-up periods. Whats really going on? Why are they trying to downplay this? We deserve The Truth. |
Explain please how they are brushing this off? They've been on the story since it was brought up at the council meeting Jan. 23.
You question the change from 5 to 6 registered offenders. I looked at the Family Watchdog site and don't see 6 either for Albert Lea. How is this the Tribune's fault?
As to Liz McClurg's quote about the recitivism rate, how is it the Tribune's fault which statistics she uses? She said it, not them. It's a quote. Maybe not The Truth as you'd like it.
Posted by Replicant on Feb. 13 2006,9:53 am
| Quote (The Game @ Feb. 12 2006,8:03pm) |
| I didn't know the story was going to hit today, but I have been working with that reporter for the last nearly 2 weeks on this. Glad that the AP picked it up. That means it hits state wide and regional. |
Game - what section was this in? Was it Sunday or Saturday's Strib? I wanted to see the actual print copy.
Posted by cheeba on Feb. 13 2006,10:40 am
Finally something I don't mind my taxes going up for.Getting tough on sex offenders will get expensive for state
Updated: 02-13-2006 09:53:35 AM
ST. PAUL (AP) - Minnesota's tab for taking a hard line on sex offenders now adds up to 34 dollars a year per taxpayer to house, treat and keep track of them.
And that price tag is on the way up.
In recent years, lawmakers from both parties have agreed to extend prison sentences for sex offenders, keep closer watch on those not behind bars and order treatment for others.
This year, legislators will consider whether to require satellite tracking devices for some offenders, to expand existing state facilities and to more aggressively go after people possessing child pornography.
Sex offender programs now cost Minnesota 117 (m) million dollars a year, but that figure could rise by 50 (m) million dollars by the end of the decade.
Copyright 2006 by The Associated
Posted by The Game on Feb. 13 2006,10:46 am
I have not seen the print side of it yet, but I am guessing its either Saturday or Sunday in the state news section.
Posted by Replicant on Feb. 13 2006,10:48 am
| Quote (The Game @ Feb. 13 2006,10:46am) |
| I have not seen the print side of it but I am guessing its Sunday in the state news section. |
Unless I'm missing it, it's not in Sunday's Twin Cities/Region section, nor in the A section.
Posted by The Game on Feb. 13 2006,10:49 am
Try Saturday Rep, I just looked at an edit that was doen early Sunday morning so it may have run on Saturday
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 13 2006,1:16 pm
| Quote (Replicant @ Feb. 13 2006,9:49am) |
| Explain please how they are brushing this off? They've been on the story since it was brought up at the council meeting Jan. 23. You question the change from 5 to 6 registered offenders. I looked at the Family Watchdog site and don't see 6 either for Albert Lea. How is this the Tribune's fault? As to Liz McClurg's quote about the recitivism rate, how is it the Tribune's fault which statistics she uses? She said it, not them. It's a quote. Maybe not The Truth as you'd like it. |
Let me make things a little more clear.
When I questioned the change from 5 to 6, I was questioning where to look up the new one (as in does anyone know where to look up the new one). Not the AL Tribune.
When I questioned the Liz quote, I was questioning what she said compared to what the DOJ says. Not the AL Tribune.
One area I was questioning the AL Tribune is why the AL Tribune did not question the statistics (do some research of their own and compare).
When I questioned the local paper brushing it off like its no big deal, I was questioning the fact that the star tribune ran a story about the fact that Minnesota has one of the most restrictive community notification programs (as in Minnesota only discloses level 3's), but the AL tribune stayed away from that subject.
Also I paid $3.00 (the paper machine didn't work the first time so I ended up paying double) for the paper thinking I would get the story that appeared in the Star Tribune (since an Albert Lea man was quoted).
My main focus of questioning is this. 10 out of 10 people I talk to in my neighborhood, or anywhere else people are talking about it the consensus I am hearing is people in this community want better community notification. Anywhere I go that people are talking about this issue I hear "we need better community notification". I just thought that since I hear this in Albert Lea and the paper is called the Albert Lea Tribune, that the Albert Lea Tribune would run a story talking about how members of the community want better community notification.
Posted by Maienca on Feb. 13 2006,7:22 pm
Sorry son of a bitch who molested my daughter isn't even on it. Officials should get their sh!t together.:angry:
Posted by repdan on Feb. 13 2006,8:45 pm
FYI< http://forum.albertlea.com/forum/Iowa.pdf >
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 13 2006,10:21 pm
That was very informative. Thanks for the information. If I followed my gut feeling, and my heart I would have to say sex offenders/pedophiles should not live anywhere near a school.
But if I look at the facts I would realize that these kind of restrictions are not effective prevention methods.
I still am going to fight for better community notification though.
Here is something I posted before, with no response so I am posting again:
I have been trying to find "official" (meaning a government agency) statistics on the recidivism rate of sexual offenders over a period of time spanning 25 years. With 25 years I mean from the date of the first conviction of an individual all the way until 25 years later.
I have found alot of private studies (schools, non-profits, etc.) that give very scary recidivism rates when you look at it over the course of 25 years.
Anyone help me out here?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 14 2006,11:49 am
Dan Sparks was in Albert Lea today and I had an opportunity to talk in person with him. Most of our conversation today was about sex offenders. Some of the subjects we talked about were electronic monitoring (GPS) and the fact that Minnesota does not disclose that much information about sex offenders. I mentioned about disclosing information on more sex offenders on a website, and Dan Sparks said he has been talking to a county attorney who was saying the same thing.One of the ideas we discussed was posting all of the sex offenders on a website when the victim was a child.
The way it sounds better community notification and electronic monitoring/GPS will be big topics this year when our lawmakers are making decisions.
I again encourage everyone to contact your lawmakers and let them know how you feel.
Posted by The Game on Feb. 14 2006,12:39 pm
Just finished a shoot with KIMT onthe issue, look for the longer story at six. The shorter one will air at 10.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 14 2006,2:08 pm
| Quote (The Game @ Feb. 14 2006,12:39pm) |
| Just finished a shoot with KIMT onthe issue, look for the longer story at six. The shorter one will air at 10. |
I will have to watch the one at 10 I have to watch channel 6 news at 6.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 14 2006,5:22 pm
| Quote (The Game @ Feb. 14 2006,12:39pm) |
| Just finished a shoot with KIMT onthe issue, look for the longer story at six. The shorter one will air at 10. |
Good job on working on getting this issue in the news!
Again!!
Posted by Wareagle11B on Feb. 14 2006,6:35 pm
I don't remember exactly who it was that was wondering where the 6th sexual offender in AL came from but I have since been given the answer. It would seem that the 1 in Clarks Grove decided that CG was not as friendly as he thought and he moved here to AL.
Posted by Replicant on Feb. 14 2006,7:37 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Feb. 14 2006,6:35pm) |
| I don't remember exactly who it was that was wondering where the 6th sexual offender in AL came from but I have since been given the answer. It would seem that the 1 in Clarks Grove decided that CG was not as friendly as he thought and he moved here to AL. |
That would be this guy...
CLARK,GRIFFIN TODD
Source of Information: IA State Sex Offender Registry
Convictions:
Lascivious Conduct W/minor ; County: Clay: Victim Age: 0 - 13; Victim Gender: Female
Home Address
Clarks Grove, Mn 56016
Physical Characteristics
Gender: Male Race: White
Hair: Brown Eye: Brown
Height: 5'10" Weight: 175 Lbs
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 14 2006,10:17 pm
Thanks for the info Wareagle and Replicant! I'll see what I can do about finding out details about this sex offender so we will know how concerned we should be.
From what I can tell so far he was 19 when he was convicted, and the victim was aged 0-13.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 14 2006,11:08 pm
< The criminal complaint states Thompson is a registered lower-level sex offender (not level 3) >Just showing an example of how no one can know for sure if someone will reoffend.
< Austin police are alerting the community to a Level II sex offender's release. >
click the link and scroll to the bottom half of the article to see how other cities handle level 2 community notification. My favorite part is "According to Minnesota Law". Has this law changed?
Posted by The Game on Feb. 15 2006,12:57 am
Some Want Changes to Minnesota's Sex Offender RegistryErin Leach
MASON CITY, Iowa (KIMT)
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Radio personality Ron Hunter wants to start a revolution...and he's using the air waves to do it.
He tells KIMT NewsChannel 3, “If you're a level one or an unclassified offender, I want to know if you're living by me. Why? Because I've got a daughter to protect and you can't keep it in your pants.”
He's referring to Minnesota's online registration requirements when it comes to sex offenders.
Minnesota displays data of only about 100 of it's 17,000 registered sex offenders.
Neighboring states including Iowa display thousands of names on their sex offender websites.
The difference is Minnesota lists only Level Three sex offenders...they're considered the most dangerous and most likely to reoffend.
Neighboring states, like Iowa, list the names and locations of thousands of sex offenders regardless of their offender status.
“When you've got people who have committed offenses against young children ages 0-13 and they're flying under Minnesota's radar, the community has a right to know about it and should have a place to go to find out,” says Ron.
He wants that place to be with world wide web but not everyone thinks that's a good idea.
Albert Lea Police Chief Dwaine Winkels, tells KIMT NewsChannel 3, “You have a person who's done their time, they're out of prison, if they even served jail time, they're now trying to rehabilitate their lives and lead an otherwise stable life. Are you going to damage their life by publicizing their crime committed eight years ago?”
But Ron says when those people committed their crimes they lost the right to live anonymously.
Some of them will reoffend so knowing who your neighbors are, knowing where some of the folks are, I'd rather air on the side of caution and save a kid than to actually sit and do nothing.
That's why he's taking a stand and contacting local lawmakers to change the laws.
If you're looking for information on someone who is not listed on Minnesota’s website, the only way to get that is to go to your county's courthouse.
While at the courthouse, just plug a name into a database and you can find out what crime that person has been convicted of.
Next Monday night there will be a public information meeting on Minnesota’s registration requirements for sex offenders.
It will be at the Albert Lea high school auditorium at 7:00 p.m.
This story can be found at: < http://www.kimt.com/servlet....calnews >
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 15 2006,11:59 am
| Quote (The Game @ Feb. 15 2006,12:57am) |
| Albert Lea Police Chief Dwaine Winkels, tells KIMT NewsChannel 3, “You have a person who's done their time, they're out of prison, if they even served jail time, they're now trying to rehabilitate their lives and lead an otherwise stable life. Are you going to damage their life by publicizing their crime committed eight years ago?” ] |
Does this mean Albert Lea Police Chief doesn't want better community notification?
When he talks about damaging someone for something they did 8 years ago, Mr. Winkels should think about the damage that was done to the victim 8 years ago.
Can the victim ever forget what damage was done to them?
What do other people think about this?
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 15 2006,2:27 pm
I heard something about a man picking a 12 year old girl up when she was walking home from school in Austin. The man was arrested from what I was told for first-degree criminal sexual conduct.Scary stuff if the man knew the victim before, but even more scary if the man did not know the victim until he "picked her up".
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 15 2006,4:25 pm
I called the Clay County Sheriffs Office today and was told that Griffin Todd Clark's victim was 13 years old.
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 16 2006,4:36 pm
found this in the Star Tribune about a convicted Sex Offender:Sex offender admits sex with teen girl he met on MySpace.com
A worried St. Paul mother called police Monday after she found a birthday card that her 15-year-old daughter apparently intended to give to a 29-year-old man she met at MySpace.com.
In it, the daughter referred to herself and a man named Ron visiting a motel again and getting married.
Before the day was over, police were talking to Ronald E. Abshire, a convicted sex offender who admitted that he and the girl had had sex 15 times.
Abshire, 29, of Inver Grove Heights, was charged Wednesday with third-degree criminal sexual conduct and is being held in the Ramsey County jail in lieu of $25,000 bail.
He was convicted in 1997 of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in Washington County for sexually abusing a 13-year-old girl.
Sexual predators have figured out that the Internet and websites such as MySpace are where kids can be found, said St. Paul police Cmdr. Neil Nelson, head of the Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.
"These guys are going to go and hang out where the kids hang out. And the kids hanging out in these blogs and websites give up a lot of information about themselves," Nelson said.
Both Abshire and the 15-year-old victim had pages on MySpace, a hugely popular Internet hub used mainly by teens and young people to create profile pages listing their interests, hobbies and other personal details.
Those creating a page must place a new contact on their friends lists to allow continued messaging. But many kids often let people they don't know onto their lists because a long friends list is seen as a status symbol, Nelson said.
The girl told police that she began communicating with Abshire on MySpace last August and met him at a park in St. Paul at the end of the month.
About a week later, they began having sex, she told police.
Abshire told police he began having sex with the girl, who he knew was 15, after meeting her at Merriam Park in October, according to the complaint.
Anyone with information about other possible victims of Abshire should call police at 651-291-1111, said police spokesman Pete Crum.
Paul Gustafson • 651-298-1545
Posted by The Game on Feb. 16 2006,5:14 pm
So far the Trib story was picked up and put in the following media: Duluth News Tribune MN, West Central Tribune ND, Fargo ND, WCCO MN, KIMT IA, Grand Forks Herald ND, WDAY ABC TV Fargo, and In-Forum. It's not just "our" problem.
Posted by munchie on Feb. 16 2006,6:09 pm
I honestly can say. When I was younger I thought no one I would ever know would be a victium or/and offender. Now that I am older, I can honestly say that is not true. I know people that have been sexually mistreated, Actully alot more than I would of ever imagined. I personally am a victim of sexual abuse and I am shocked to find out that most of Minnesotan Sexual Offenders are not posted on websites. I think victims of these crimes and communities deserve better than 100 out of 17,000 sex offenders posted on a sex offender website. What asurence does that give me or any other person that a sex offender doesn't actully live next door? I thought Minnesota was alot more wholesome?
Posted by allergic to bogus on Feb. 16 2006,6:24 pm
One thing that will never change is that sexual predators will always pounce on the vunerability of the innocence of youth. How pathetic they are. And how trusting our youth is. It is so sad that as a parent we have to educate our children to the evil ways of these lowlifes and make them grow up so much sooner. But, in effect be able to grow up normally. One in four people out there has been a victim of some sort of molestation. And it is actually closer to one in three. My advice to parents is to always keep the lines of communication open with your children. They are striving to make friends and have somone to open up to. Never let them feel that they caused this to happen to them and always let them know that you are there for them. We can't erase what happens to them but, we can be there to educate, encourage and support and love them.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Feb. 16 2006,7:52 pm
Just to keep y'all upto speed here so you will know what we are doing. I have sent e-mails to about 7 or so TV stations and hopefully this will make them aware of this meeting and they will at least send a rep to do a report. Most of them were up in the T/C area but I did contact KAAL, KTTC (Roch) and KIMT. Again I hope they will at least send a rep to do a report.
Posted by munchie on Feb. 17 2006,1:32 am
I just heard from a very angry mom that a sex offender lives directly across the street from sibley school. Can sex offenders do that and does the school know this?
Posted by The Game on Feb. 17 2006,11:09 am
The short answer to both of yoru questions Munchie is Yes and Yes. Depending on the level of the offender the only ones who were most likely notified was the schhol principal and maybe a few of their employees. The was the current reporting laws are it seems as though its only on a need to know basis and your friend, although by the school does not have a need to know. If the ofender was a level 3 she would have beeen told, or if th epolicve have concerns of a level 2 reoffending she might have been told. If the offender is a level 1 or uncatagorized offender it is up to her to find out on her own.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Feb. 17 2006,6:47 pm
Update and an FYI. I heard from the KTTC/FOX 47 News Center Assignment Editor and it sounds like they will do their best to be present at this meeting. I have yet to hear from any of the Twin Cities Stations I contacted but I am keeping my fingers crossed that some of them will show up.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 17 2006,7:24 pm
Keep up the good work Wareagle The more media attention the better!
I plan on going tomorrow to see Dan Sparks when he is having the meeting tomorrow. Anybody else going? I think he would love to hear peoples opinions on better community notification!
The more people he hears it from the better!!
Sen. Dan Sparks will hold a town hall meeting at 10 a.m. Saturday at the Union Center, 404 E. Main St., Albert Lea. The public is welcome and coffee and rolls will be served.
Also: My cousin contacted alot of lawmakers (just like I did) and here is part of an e-mail she got from House Majority Leader Erik Paulsen:
Thanks for the note -- I agree with you. In fact I carried the legislation for the current law that posts the level 3 offenders on the internet - I wanted to include everyone as you mention. I'm definately supportive of your concerns.
I think it would benefit anyone that wants better community notification to contact Erik Paulsen and let him know, here is Erik Paulsen's e-mail address:
rep.erik.paulsen@house.mn
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 17 2006,9:32 pm
Just a thought, but has anyone tried contacting Fox News Channel?Does this issue have "No Spin Zone" written all over it? Maybe we could get Bill O'Reilly to put the pressure on with "The O'Reilly Factor".
here is his e-mail address:
Oreilly@foxnews.com
Not saying Bill is good or bad, just saying it might help if we could get him to bring it up on national television.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 18 2006,8:49 am
Here is a scary statistic from the: Center for Sex Offender Management
A Project of the Office of Justice Programs
U.S Department of Justice
Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years).
CHILD MOLESTERS 52% RECIDIVISM RATE OVER 25 YEARS
RAPISTS 39% RECIDIVISM RATE OVER 25 YEARS
but don't worry because:
(according to the Department of Justice)
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 18 2006,10:06 pm
I went to the meeting today at the union center. Dan Sparks publicly spoke about the Sex Offender issue. I stated my opinion that anytime the victim of a sex offender is a child, the sex offender should be listed somewhere publicly. Parents and Grandparents have a right to know!It looks like to me that Dan Sparks will support Better Community Notification!!
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 19 2006,3:04 pm
Here is what one community is doing to help society deal with the dangers such as sex offenders, prostitution, drugs, and violence in their community: < 4th Ward CARE Task Force >and that is paid for by: < McKnight Foundation >
but Southern Minnesota's version of the McKnight Foundation is this: < Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation >
Maybe Albert Lea could have something like this?
Anybody else willing to try?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 19 2006,8:52 pm
sex offender issues in the news:< Taylors Falls, Minnesota >
< convicted level two sex offender >
< Sex Offender or Not? >
< Another level 2 sex offender >
< indecent liberties with a minor >
< convicted sex offender under probation supervision after serving four months in jail >
< 14 year old wife? >
< pedophile roulette? >
< Don't kill a pedophile priest >
< former Minnesota elementary school counselor and social worker >
< Police Officer that is a convicted sex offender gets paid to get lapdances? >
< Representatives Joe Atkins, DFL-Inver Grove Heights, and Rep. Jeff Johnson, R-Plymouth, both presented sex offender proposals >
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 20 2006,12:34 pm
I hope alot of people go to the meeting at the high school today. 7:00 P.M.
Posted by The Coach on Feb. 20 2006,2:18 pm
| Quote (TheTruth @ Feb. 20 2006,12:34pm) |
| I hope alot of people go to the meeting at the high school today. 7:00 P.M. |
Is anyone planning on taping this meeting tonight and submitting it to the Public Access Channel? Will the city be taping it for Government channel 16?
Posted by repdan on Feb. 20 2006,3:34 pm
| Quote (The Coach @ Feb. 20 2006,2:18pm) | ||
Is anyone planning on taping this meeting tonight and submitting it to the Public Access Channel? Will the city be taping it for Government channel 16? |
good timing. I was just trying to call Chad and ask him that. The person from the Wetterling Foundation suggested.
Posted by The Game on Feb. 20 2006,3:44 pm
KIMT was just here again talking with me on the issue, it will run at 5 and 6pm today. They will also be at tonights meeting as will I.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Feb. 20 2006,3:49 pm
I will bring my video camera to the meeting to try and tape it for the Government Access Channel. Dunno if it will work but I will try.
Posted by The Coach on Feb. 20 2006,4:12 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Feb. 20 2006,3:49pm) |
| I will bring my video camera to the meeting to try and tape it for the Government Access Channel. Dunno if it will work but I will try. |
RepDan and Wareagle, hope one of you can make it happen.
If it's to go on Government Channel, the city will most likely require they do it. Maybe RepDan has some power of persusaion there. Otherwise Wareagle if you or Chad do it, it certainly can be submitted to Charter for Public Access.
Either way, let's be sure people know if/when it's aired.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 20 2006,4:20 pm
Bring your film, tape or media to the web room and I will prepare it for broadcast
Posted by The Game on Feb. 20 2006,4:56 pm
State to put rapists on posters The US state of Mississippi plans to put the names and faces of convicted sex offenders on roadside billboards.
About 100 posters showing offenders, particularly those who prey on minors, will be put up, a state official said.
Don Taylor, head of the state's Department of Human Services, told a local newspaper the aim was to make the public aware of their crimes.
But human rights campaigners say the measure is unnecessary as the public is already aware once convicts are jailed.
Mr Taylor is especially keen to name and shame those who make minors pregnant.
He says he wants the state's health department to check the ages parents list on new-borns' birth certificates and report to him any cases of statutory rape.
The age of consent in Mississippi is 16, but mothers in the state sometimes are listed as being as young as 10, Mr Taylor told the local Clarion-Ledger newspaper.
Mississippi has one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the US.
Why is it necessary to put them on billboards if they're already serving?
Nsombi Lambright
American Civil Liberties Union
He said the statistics had helped him determine that 111 men were guilty of statutory rape in the year 2002 alone.
"So, if you want to get your name and face in high places, get convicted," he told the newspaper.
The American Civil Liberties Union in Mississippi said the billboards would be a waste of money.
"Why is it necessary to put them on billboards if they're already serving?" its head, Nsombi Lambright, asked.
"If they have criminal charges before them, the information is public, the victims are notified. The people already know in these communities who these folks are once they're arrested."
It is not the first time Mr Taylor's department has used controversial means to highlight problems.
Among others, it has "Mississippi's Ten Most Wanted" posters of parents who have failed to pay child support.
A few US states require sex offenders to be identified as such on their driver's licences.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Posted by Wareagle11B on Feb. 20 2006,5:01 pm
I just called KTTC/FOX 47 in Rochester and they confirmed that a reporter will be at the meeting.
Posted by Replicant on Feb. 20 2006,5:08 pm
It's worth mentioning again...and if someone gets a chance to make this statement tonight, do it.For a online forum that is all NEGATIVE, tonight's public forum to inform residents about sexual predators came about BECAUSE of people who post on this forum.
Wareagle
The Game
Cheeba
Geo (deferred to Wareagle in brining it to the city council)
PreemptivePrevention
RepDan (yes State Representative Dan Dorman)
Some choose to make their name known, some don't. I don't care. It's happening because of them and I hope POSITIVE change happens in this state because of them.
I'm sure Suzie Petersen will be planning for the upcoming golfing season tonight instead. Oops, sorry that was negative or sarcastic. It's me, not the forum. Please don't take me seriously.
Posted by The Coach on Feb. 20 2006,5:28 pm
This even caught the Tribune publisher's attention in his column today (signed by the way).< The things that matter: Old dogs and children and ... >
| Quote |
| Because of some great people in Albert Lea bringing this story to the forefront of concern, tonight at 7 p.m. at the high school auditorium there will be a public forum and discussion that Albert Lea Police Chief Dwaine Winkels in cooperation with community education has put together. Speaking at the forum will be Bill Donnay of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, Detective Frank Kohl, Investigator Chuck Malepsy of the Freeborn County Sheriff's Office, State Rep. Dan Dorman and a representative from the Jacob Wetterling Foundation. |
Side note to Liberal - Schmeltzer quoted a Tom T. Hall song. How does that compare to Anne Murray?
Posted by Botto 82 on Feb. 21 2006,12:33 am
| Quote (Replicant @ Feb. 20 2006,5:08pm) |
| Please don't take me seriously. |
You have a bag over your head.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 21 2006,1:12 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Feb. 14 2006,6:35pm) |
| I don't remember exactly who it was that was wondering where the 6th sexual offender in AL came from but I have since been given the answer. It would seem that the 1 in Clarks Grove decided that CG was not as friendly as he thought and he moved here to AL. |
This individual was nine houses away from my 6 year old daughter. I went to Clarks Grove armed with his information and showed his picture to my daughters grandfather and grandmother and all it took was a little small town justice, in Albert Lea at least there is a police force constantly on patrol.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 21 2006,1:25 pm
Their was a little talk last night during the meeting about a website listing sex offenders not being the "silver bullet".They said a website listing convicted sex offenders was not what we need to prevent sex offenders from preying on children.
A single Mom in Austin, MN had a boyfriend. She did not know he was a convicted sex offender. She did not know he was convicted of Criminal Sexual Conduct 4 With a Female Under 13 Years Old. This man was very bad to a female under 13 years old and was not listed on the DOC website as a level 3 sex offender even though his victim was a female under 13 years old.
Because of a topic I started in an Austin forum another member brought up this man's name as a pervert you need to watch out for. I found his picture on the DOC website, but he was not listed with the sex offenders, he was listed with the "normal" convicts. I posted a link to his picture. The woman learns from someone that her boyfriend is a convicted sex offender because of what someone saw on the forum. Boyfriend goes back to jail.
Better Community Notification would have helped in this case. If people in Minnesota had a website where they could go to see sex offenders convicted in Minnesota things like this could be prevented.
< Single Mom's boyfriend yahoo personal ad >
< The Personal Ad the single mom shoud have seen, but didn't because he was not listed on MN DOC sex offender site. >
Looks like Minnesota should start listing sex offenders on a website?
Posted by Wareagle11B on Feb. 21 2006,1:40 pm
| Quote (Replicant @ Feb. 20 2006,5:08pm) |
| It's worth mentioning again...and if someone gets a chance to make this statement tonight, do it. For a online forum that is all NEGATIVE, tonight's public forum to inform residents about sexual predators came about BECAUSE of people who post on this forum. Wareagle The Game Cheeba Geo (deferred to Wareagle in brining it to the city council) PreemptivePrevention RepDan (yes State Representative Dan Dorman) Some choose to make their name known, some don't. I don't care. It's happening because of them and I hope POSITIVE change happens in this state because of them. I'm sure Suzie Petersen will be planning for the upcoming golfing season tonight instead. Oops, sorry that was negative or sarcastic. It's me, not the forum. Please don't take me seriously. |
Just an FYI for everyone who posts here. I was interviewed by KTTC and I mentioned this forum at least 2X while being interviewed. I watched the news after the Olympics and unfortunately it never made that part of it. Mayhaps with it being mentioned on to 2 local TV news crews, as well as the current situation involving the Chamber, more folks around here will start taking a look see at this forum and realize it isn't as bad as some folks would make it out to be. I would personally like to say Thanks to Chad for being there and taping the entire session last night.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 21 2006,4:10 pm
Another reason Minnesota should list all sex offenders whose victims are a child. < This Convicted Sex Offender > was charged with sex crimes for a sick perverted incident that involved a boy in 2005. If this convicted sex offender was listed on a Minnesota Sex Offender Site the child would not have been hurt because the childs parent(s) would have known to keep this convicted sex offender away!
This convicted sex offender has been convicted of molesting multiple children in Minnesota, but is not listed on the Minnesota Sex Offender Site?
So again I have to say anytime the victim of a sex offender is a child, the convicted sex offender needs to be listed on a Minnesota Sex Offender Website to prevent people from letting convicted sex offenders enter a childs life!
Posted by Beyonce_clone on Feb. 21 2006,5:14 pm
47 registered predatory offenders live in Albert Lea and 61 in Freeborn County, a small percentage of the approximately 17,000 registered offenders in Minnesota,Wow i didnt know their were so many living in albert lea. How is 47 offenders living in Albert lea a small percentage it's not like Albert lea is that big of a town.
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 21 2006,8:40 pm
I want to see the meeting, where do I go?Anybody go to the meeting last night? Did they try to downplay anything?
From the Albert Lea Tribune article it sounds like they were trying to focus the attention away from convicted sex offenders onto the internet?
Posted by Wareagle11B on Feb. 21 2006,8:56 pm
I was there Truth and what was said was pretty much what we already knew as far as sexual predators go. They stated that the KNOWN ones are not the ones we should be worried about as much as the ones we are unaware of. People that are closest to us, i.e. family members, are more likely to become that sexual predator rather than a KNOWN predator re-offending. Liberal taped the entire thing so he or Geo would be the person(s) to ask. I taped it but unlike Liberal I only had 1 camera and not 2. They still don't believe that a website or more public information of these convicts is the right way to go but I intend to continue working on this issue and I don't plan on letting it die anytime soon. Better community notification is, IMHO, the best way to go.
Posted by Liberal on Feb. 21 2006,9:01 pm
I just finished the DVD about an hour ago, I'll bring a copy to both Charter and City Hall tomorrow. I can also bring Geo one to put online but it was 3 hours long.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 22 2006,7:05 am
Think about this, the DOC, the local police, and the Wetterling foundation are not in favor of the change in a web site. There reasons are not the same, but why do you think this is?Having said that, it is an election year and Gov. Pawlenty feels he is in trouble over sexual predators, see other page on release (FYI I don't think he did anything wrong, only 14 states committ and we are soon to be the leader). My guess is that he will support this, so he can't be attacked if something bad happens. Hatch will be out doing the same thing, see the meth law suit. Odd this stuff pops up on their radar screen in an election year.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 22 2006,9:30 am
This just in..< http://www.governor.state.mn.us/Tpaw_View_Article.asp?artid=1752 >
I think this may be a good idea. Focus on offenders who are out of compliance.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 22 2006,9:39 am
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/261610.htmlHere is the story in the Star Tribune....
Looks like he also wants to list all 17000. Should make lots of people happy, too bad the data shows it will cause an increase in re-offending.
Posted by The Game on Feb. 22 2006,12:25 pm
I still stand by what I said in the meeting to Craig Nelson. Some of the money should be spent in and on law enforcement. Training so another kiddy porn collecter is not cut loose on a technicality or bad initial investigations. Training the front line guys is just as important to making a case stick that the attorney trying the case.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 22 2006,12:49 pm
| Quote (The Game @ Feb. 22 2006,12:25pm) |
| I still stand by what I said in the meeting to Craig Nelson. Some of the money should be spent in and on law enforcement. Training so another kiddy porn collecter is not cut loose on a technicality or bad initial investigations. Training the front line guys is just as important to making a case stick that the attorney trying the case. |
amen, that and keeping the pressure on monitoring them will help.
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 22 2006,1:17 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Feb. 21 2006,1:25pm) |
| Their was a little talk last night during the meeting about a website listing sex offenders not being the "silver bullet". They said a website listing convicted sex offenders was not what we need to prevent sex offenders from preying on children. A single Mom in Austin, MN had a boyfriend. She did not know he was a convicted sex offender. She did not know he was convicted of Criminal Sexual Conduct 4 With a Female Under 13 Years Old. This man was very bad to a female under 13 years old and was not listed on the DOC website as a level 3 sex offender even though his victim was a female under 13 years old. Because of a topic I started in an Austin forum another member brought up this man's name as a pervert you need to watch out for. I found his picture on the DOC website, but he was not listed with the sex offenders, he was listed with the "normal" convicts. I posted a link to his picture. The woman learns from someone that her boyfriend is a convicted sex offender because of what someone saw on the forum. Boyfriend goes back to jail. Better Community Notification would have helped in this case. If people in Minnesota had a website where they could go to see sex offenders convicted in Minnesota things like this could be prevented. < Single Mom's boyfriend yahoo personal ad > < The Personal Ad the single mom shoud have seen, but didn't because he was not listed on MN DOC sex offender site. > Looks like Minnesota should start listing sex offenders on a website? |
looks like his picture got updated on the DOC site.
I am curious about a quote from his yahoo personal ad:
In my own words
"Hey there. I'm lookin for some new friends in Austin and this looked like a good place to start. I am a nice guy.Give me a shot. You probably won't be sorry."
the ad should have read "if you don't have any children around you ever that I could hurt, you probably won't be sorry"
why was this convicted sex offender not listed as a sex offender on the DOC site?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 22 2006,1:37 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Feb. 22 2006,12:49pm) | ||
amen, that and keeping the pressure on monitoring them will help. |
What the Game said, plus what Repdan said, plus what I am saying: All convicted sex offenders whose victim was a child should be listed on a website!!
Better Training!
Better Monitoring!
Better Community Notification!
what do you say Repdan, put them all together and take it to the house?
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 22 2006,4:57 pm
| Quote (The Game @ Jan. 25 2006,12:51pm) |
| That is exactly why I am working with Rep Dan to try to have some legislation drafted to send to the floor. |
How is this coming along, any progress?
| Quote (The Game @ Jan. 25 2006,12:51pm) |
| I'm also in contact with other politicians to see if the law cant be changed or amended. |
I hope everybody else is taking time to do this also.
| Quote (The Game @ Jan. 25 2006,12:51pm) |
| Great platform to run on for upcoming elections. |
When election time comes I think we will be able to see how our politicians voted on this, so we the people can vote for the politicians who care about the pain and suffering of the children, not the child molesters!
Posted by Liberal on Feb. 22 2006,5:04 pm
The meeting will be on government channel 16 Friday morning at 9am, and they expect to be able to play it this weekend at 7pm. I'm sure you could just call them and get it played about any time there's 3hours of open airtime, and I think they will make copies for a small fee if anyone wants one
Posted by Younger on Feb. 22 2006,5:07 pm
As far as I am concerned most Sex offenders who harm minors should have 2 bloody stakes tied to their naked waste and sent into a den of 2 month starved lions. Or even better they should be sent on a one way scientific exploration trip to pluto without a space ship.
Posted by gabby05 on Feb. 22 2006,6:42 pm
Dan, thanks for clearing up the Eric thing. Someone mentioned a few pages back sex offenders are 43 percent less likely to be arrested again for repeat of offenses. Do they base this on the fact they are accounting for the predators they have been able to keep track of? What about the people who can outrun this system? I hate to admit this but not all predators are poor white trash who can't afford to leave their hometown. Many of these people are considered intelligent by most people's standard. As we all know, they are on every socio-eco level. College grads. They have had the capability to start lives over. Does anyone agree??
Posted by munchie on Feb. 22 2006,7:06 pm
| Quote (gabby05 @ Feb. 22 2006,6:42pm) |
| Dan, thanks for clearing up the Eric thing. |
What Eric thing, and is Dan repdan?
Posted by Wareagle11B on Feb. 22 2006,7:12 pm
KAAL is keeping this story in the forefront. I just finished another interview with them on what I thought of the Governor's plan. I, of course, said it is typical politics and the interview should run at 10 tonight. Yes Dan is usually Rep Dan and I would like to say thanks to you Rep Dan for the meeting Monday.
I agree with Pre in that better community notification is one of the key's to this situation but there are other ways to help this issue become more solid as far as the legal area is concerned. Let's keep the politicians on their toes and refuse to say die when any of them attempt to placate us with answers we are not happy with. (Sorry Dan I know YOU are trying it is the other politicians I am concerned about)
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 22 2006,8:59 pm
| Quote (gabby05 @ Feb. 22 2006,6:42pm) |
| What about the people who can outrun this system? I hate to admit this but not all predators are poor white trash who can't afford to leave their hometown. Many of these people are considered intelligent by most people's standard. As we all know, they are on every socio-eco level. College grads. They have had the capability to start lives over. Does anyone agree?? |
This is one of the reasons we need better community notification. So people that are child molesting convicted sex offenders will be listed on a website. It is very hard to prevent the child molesters society doesn't know about from hurting our children. The child molesters we know about should be listed on a website and held accountable for the hurt they inflicted on children.
That way the chances of a convicted child molester hurting your children would be less. If you list the child molesters on a statewide website you can check to see if your new neighbor, a friends new boyfriend/girlfriend, or a co-worker is a convicted child molester before you let them enter into your life, but more importantly the life of your children!
When a child molester hurts a child and is convicted, they might spend a few years in prison, might only get probation, and have less then 1% chance of being listed on the MN DOC Sex Offender Website. Long story short, their troubles (if they have any) go away after a couple of years.
When a child molester hurts a child, the pain the child has to suffer, and the pain the child's family has to suffer will never go away.
To answer your question gabby05, yes these convicted child molesters do have the capability to start their lives over somewhere new and hurt other children (the Department of Justice say over half of all child molesters will reoffend), but if the convicted child molesters were listed on a website it would be a lot harder for them to prey on more children.
and they would be held more accountable for the pain they inflicted!
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 23 2006,10:54 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Feb. 22 2006,1:37pm) | ||||
What the Game said, plus what Repdan said, plus what I am saying: All convicted sex offenders whose victim was a child should be listed on a website!! Better Training! Better Monitoring! Better Community Notification! what do you say Repdan, put them all together and take it to the house? |
I like this idea, go for it Repdan!
Posted by allergic to bogus on Feb. 23 2006,11:32 pm
The way that I see it , the forum is making a difference. It is basically a chat room. However, i have learned many relevent facts that were not put on in the media. These as a majority were confirmed.Nothing is perfect and of course some undisirables come on here. Every one has them. We would love to put our names on here but, many of us work out in the public and could lose our jobs. i think that it is sad that we need to be under handles if we don't want that to happen. many of you know who I am and that I refuse to be stifled by threats of losing my job. Most of us have written letters to the editor with positive results from the public. The very fact that we must use anonymity to speak our thoughts is a sad sad fact in our community with out fear of reprisal from the good ole boys. They got my number but, I have been lucky in the sense that they have not figured out who i am by my postings. BTW, can some one explain V. Pestorious's letter to me . What was her point???
Posted by Mamma on Feb. 24 2006,7:06 am
I read her letter to the editor a couple of times to try to get her point. I think she finds us offensive and isn't going to post or read this anymore. I would think that the poster boy for not wanting your name posted on here would be Repo. I wouldn't want him smearing my life, my friends, my relatives, and my business. George even has people following him around when he is shopping. How sick is that? I think having your name on here does not give you anymore credibility than anyone else. It just opens you up to a bunch of nuts out there.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 24 2006,2:13 pm
The Forum is an addiction she'll be back.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 24 2006,2:57 pm
| Quote (GEOKARJO @ Feb. 24 2006,2:13pm) |
| The Forum is an addiction she'll be back. |
I'm glad you brought up addiction. Don't pedophiles have a disease/addiction that is very hard to cure?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 24 2006,4:00 pm
When I hear people talking about sex offenders in the community I hear the same name brought up over and over.Chad Flim (I don't know how the last name is spelled)
Why isn't he listed as a level 3 sex offender?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 24 2006,7:05 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Feb. 24 2006,4:00pm) |
| When I hear people talking about sex offenders in the community I hear the same name brought up over and over. Chad Flim (I don't know how the last name is spelled) Why isn't he listed as a level 3 sex offender? |
or could it be Flom, Flum, or Flam?
anybody know anything about this guy?
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 24 2006,7:40 pm
I know of him, I like yourself have only heard rumors.
Posted by bob on Feb. 24 2006,7:50 pm
he has been charged and sentanced to prison time for failing to register as a predatory offender
Posted by bob on Feb. 24 2006,7:54 pm
Conviction Number: 006 Case Number: 00014580
Court File Number: K700001581
Disposition Date: 02/26/2001
Controlling Agency: Austin Police Department
Court Agency: Mower District Court
Assigned Custodial Agency: Mower County Jail
Assigned Probation Agency: Mower County Probation Off
Count Number: 001
General Offense:
Statute Description: Crim Sex Cond-5th Deg-Nonconsensual Sexual Contact
Statute Number: 609.3451
Disposition: Convicted
Pronounced Fine: $900
Stayed Fine: $0
Court Cost Amount: $0
Restitution Amount: $0
Assessment Amount: $35
Pronounced Sentence: 365 Days
Probation Sentence: 2 Years
Conditional Confinement: 60 Days
Conviction Level: Gross Misdemeanor
Conviction Number: 007
Case Number: 01008486
Court File Number: K001001013
Disposition Date: 02/16/2001
Controlling Agency: Austin Police Department
Court Agency: Mower District Court
Assigned Custodial Agency: Mower County Jail
Assigned Probation Agency:
Count Number: 001
General Offense:
Statute Description: Obstruct Legal Process-Interfere w/Peace Officer
Statute Number: 609.50.1.2
Disposition: Convicted
Pronounced Fine: $300
Stayed Fine: $0
Court Cost Amount: $0
Restitution Amount: $0
Assessment Amount: $45
Pronounced Sentence: 90 Days
Probation Sentence:
Conditional Confinement:
Conviction Level: Misdemeanor
Conviction Number: 008
Case Number: 01016732
Court File Number: K901001933
Disposition Date: 02/20/2002
Controlling Agency: Mower Co So
Court Agency: Mower District Court
Assigned Custodial Agency: MN Cor Fac St Cloud
Assigned Probation Agency:
Count Number: 001
General Offense:
Statute Description: Failure to Register as Predatory Offender
Statute Number: 243.166
Disposition: Convicted
Pronounced Fine: $0
Stayed Fine: $0
Court Cost Amount: $0
Restitution Amount: $0
Assessment Amount: $0
Pronounced Sentence: 13 Months
Probation Sentence:
Conditional Confinement:
Conviction Level: Felony
thats only part of whats list for chad flim on mncrminals.com
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 24 2006,8:29 pm
| Quote (bob @ Feb. 24 2006,7:54pm) |
| Conviction Number: 008 Case Number: 01016732 Court File Number: K901001933 Disposition Date: 02/20/2002 Controlling Agency: Mower Co So Court Agency: Mower District Court Assigned Custodial Agency: MN Cor Fac St Cloud Assigned Probation Agency: Count Number: 001 General Offense: Statute Description: Failure to Register as Predatory Offender Statute Number: 243.166 Disposition: Convicted Pronounced Fine: $0 Stayed Fine: $0 Court Cost Amount: $0 Restitution Amount: $0 Assessment Amount: $0 Pronounced Sentence: 13 Months Probation Sentence: Conditional Confinement: Conviction Level: Felony |
Thanks for the info Bob!
I am really concerned the time doen't add up for this guy.
According to the DOC Offender Records Chad Flim is not state property right now (not in prison, not on supervised release, not on parole).
His disposition date was 02/20/2002.
His sentence was 13 Months, with no probation.
I hope we can expose this sick perverted convicted sex offender before he has a chance to prey on more children!
How did this convicted sex offender slip through the system?
or is he in the system?
anybody know the current status of this convicted sex offender?
and before I forget, what are the chances of this, the same day I post questions about this guy just happens to be his birthday?
Happy Birthday Convicted Sex Offender!
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 25 2006,9:52 am
< Tracking child porn offenders goal of new bill >I was talking to some of my younger classmates at Riverland and one of them brought up the fact that they did more time in jail for a minor consumption than that guy that had child porn on his computer here in Albert Lea (the child porn case where the offender lived right by a daycare). I do not encourage underage drinking, and I definitely don't think its ok for a minor to drink.
but I think someone caught with child porn should be in jail longer than a 20 year old caught with a beer!
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 25 2006,10:00 am
| Quote (repdan @ Feb. 22 2006,7:05am) |
| Think about this, the DOC, the local police, and the Wetterling foundation are not in favor of the change in a web site. |
Do you work for the DOC, the local police, the Jacob Wetterling foundation, or the people in this community?
Posted by The Game on Feb. 25 2006,10:49 am
Man refuses to wear electronic monitorLEON, Iowa, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- An Iowa sex offender who belongs to a church that believes electricity is evil has asked a judge to exempt him from wearing an electronic monitor.
Scott Smith was given a short jail sentence and five years probation for molesting two teenage girls in 2003. At the time, he was a member of the Brotherhood of Christ and his wife and children still belong to the group.
At a hearing Thursday, Ron Livingston, leader of the Brotherhood, testified that the group believes literally that electricity can cause people to disobey God, the Des Moines Register reported. Livingston said an electronic monitor could harm Smith's children.
Smith has been refusing to wear the monitor. Judge Sherm Phipps could order him sent to prison or could grant him an exemption.
A social worker testified that she believes Smith is unlikely to commit another crime.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 25 2006,11:18 am
Must be Amish.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Feb. 25 2006,11:33 am
So because of his religious beliefs this guy could walk away from his electronic monitoring requirement and thus be free to once more commit another sexually deviant act. WTF. Apparently his beliefs weren't enough to stop him from committing this sexual crime in the first place. To let him walk away from an electronic monitor because of the claim that electricity could "harm" his children due to the religious beliefs is insane and completely misguided.
Posted by Merlyn on Feb. 25 2006,11:41 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Feb. 24 2006,2:57pm) | ||
I'm glad you brought up addiction. Don't pedophiles have a disease/addiction that is very hard to cure? |
Smith+Wesson has a cure. take your choice,.45 .44 Magnum .357, etc.
Posted by big_sam on Feb. 25 2006,1:47 pm
< Non registered sex offender > Here is another non registered sex offender from Austin. I tried to post it in Austin uncut but i was having problems.
Posted by ICU812 on Feb. 25 2006,3:21 pm
Judge should allow him to remove the band, and then make him tatoo MOLESTER on his forehead.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 25 2006,5:39 pm
| Quote (TheTruth @ Feb. 25 2006,10:00am) | ||
Do you work for the DOC, the local police, the Jacob Wetterling foundation, or the people in this community? |
Do you really need the civics lesson? We are a representative democracy, which means we elect people to study the issues and cast votes based on the facts. We are not a direct democracy, if we were, you would not have to elect anyone, just take a poll and hope people take the time to study and understand the issues.
If you are looking for someone who does not study the issue and only reacts to a small number of comments, I would vote for someone other then me, assuming I run again.
I would not vote to cause harm to people because it my be popluar with those who don't know the facts, I do think it is my job to try to help people understand the issues and why I vote the way I do.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 25 2006,5:45 pm
| Quote (TheTruth @ Feb. 22 2006,4:57pm) |
| When election time comes I think we will be able to see how our politicians voted on this, so we the people can vote for the politicians who care about the pain and suffering of the children, not the child molesters! |
Who do you think cares more about the child molesters? You seem to be pushing for a change that will cause more people to suffer but we will "feel safer". Do you really think the DOC. the local cops, and the person from the Weterling foundation care more about the child molester?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 25 2006,6:49 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Feb. 25 2006,5:39pm) |
| which means we elect people to study the issues and cast votes based on the facts |
Thanks for bringing that up. I justed wanted to say to anyone that does read this forum I am positive Repdan has studied this issue alot in the last month.
With that said, wouldn't Better Community Notification help prevent child molesters from getting close to a family and start "grooming" the children? If we know who the convicted child molesters are we could prevent them from getting close to our children!
The "facts" show that most victims are not strangers, but how do we keep convicted child molesters from becoming close to our families if we do not know they are convicted sex offenders?
On Monday of last week I was told in the meeting at the High School a website would not help.
But because of what I and a few others posted on a website in Austin about a convicted sex offender, a convicted sex offender was exposed and is now back in jail!
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 25 2006,7:08 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Feb. 25 2006,5:45pm) |
| Who do you think cares more about the child molesters? You seem to be pushing for a change that will cause more people to suffer but we will "feel safer". |
I am only here to speak the Truth. How would holding convicted child molesters accountable for the pain they caused to children by listing them on a website so we can identify the dangers surrounding our children cause the children to suffer?
Why can we read in the paper about people that get DUI's, no insurance tickets, minor consumption's, etc., but we can't list convicted child molesters? Why do the convicted sex offenders get a break? I feel like the only people that suffer if we list the convicted child molesters are the convicted child molesters. If we don't list the convicted child molesters on a website the people that suffer are the families, but most importantly the CHILDREN!
Posted by studystudent on Feb. 25 2006,7:18 pm
I just wanted to share something I learned in Social Problems at school.Pedophiles that molest children are very hard to cure. They will in most cases molest children again. Castration does not work because the urge to become intimate with children is psychological. In most cases the victim/victims parents do not report the crime. Many pedophiles that molest children, molest children over and over without getting caught.
With that knowledge I must say that I agree with a lot of the people on here that want to be told who the child molesters are.
Posted by nphilbro on Feb. 26 2006,12:49 am
P-P I'm with you on winning that war. I friend of mine just turned her boyfriend in for posession of material on his computer that she found (don't know the guy, didn't even know it happened until a week ago...I'm a dad, I'll spend the rest of my life being a bubba's bitch for murder before I'll let a child be molested).You obviously feel strongly about this issue. I'm curious what your take is on the Washington State law that lowers the penalty when children are abused by family member - supposedly because they want to ensure more convictions without the victims worrying about losing a father or brother or uncle for life. I certainly part with my fellow dems on this.
There are many bad people in the world. They are all related to someone. They are all "bad" because they hurt someone.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 26 2006,3:02 am
| Quote (nphilbro @ Feb. 26 2006,12:49am) |
| P-P I'm with you on winning that war. I friend of mine just turned her boyfriend in for posession of material on his computer that she found (don't know the guy, didn't even know it happened until a week ago...I'm a dad, I'll spend the rest of my life being a bubba's bitch for murder before I'll let a child be molested). You obviously feel strongly about this issue. I'm curious what your take is on the Washington State law that lowers the penalty when children are abused by family member - supposedly because they want to ensure more convictions without the victims worrying about losing a father or brother or uncle for life. I certainly part with my fellow dems on this. There are many bad people in the world. They are all related to someone. They are all "bad" because they hurt someone. |
Could you provide a link for the washinton state law you are talking about. I have not found the specific law you mentioned, but I found a different washinton state law that is interesting.
< click this to learn more! >
I wonder if Minnesota has a similar law?
but I don't know how it could have a similar law since the state of Minnesota doesn't tell the public who the convicted child molesters are!
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 26 2006,3:46 am
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Feb. 25 2006,11:33am) |
| So because of his religious beliefs this guy could walk away from his electronic monitoring requirement and thus be free to once more commit another sexually deviant act. WTF. Apparently his beliefs weren't enough to stop him from committing this sexual crime in the first place. To let him walk away from an electronic monitor because of the claim that electricity could "harm" his children due to the religious beliefs is insane and completely misguided. |
whats next?
I can see it now: Convicted child molester argues in court that he can't go to jail for molesting children. The convicted child molester goes on to say "Jail is against my religion".
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 26 2006,4:18 am
over on a forum in Austin we are posting information about convicted sex offenders in the austin area. (even helped send one back to jail because of it) (helped save a few children that were in the "grooming" stage with a convicted sex offender)Anybody that knows the name of a convicted sex offender living in Albert Lea (or around Albert Lea) please private message me with their name (or post their name here)
Parents have a right to know!
Posted by repdan on Feb. 26 2006,1:24 pm
| Quote (TheTruth @ Feb. 25 2006,7:08pm) | ||
I am only here to speak the Truth. How would holding convicted child molesters accountable for the pain they caused to children by listing them on a website so we can identify the dangers surrounding our children cause the children to suffer? Why can we read in the paper about people that get DUI's, no insurance tickets, minor consumption's, etc., but we can't list convicted child molesters? Why do the convicted sex offenders get a break? I feel like the only people that suffer if we list the convicted child molesters are the convicted child molesters. If we don't list the convicted child molesters on a website the people that suffer are the families, but most importantly the CHILDREN! |
Glad you seek the truth. These people have no protections that others don't. They are subject and should be to the same treatment in the papers and else where as the DUI offender. What is being disucussed is a listing beyond that and who should be included. If you want to push for all 17,000 to be listed, at least try to understand all the effects, and I am not talking about to the offender, like you I don't care how they feel.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Feb. 26 2006,2:00 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Feb. 26 2006,4:18am) |
| over on a forum in Austin we are posting information about convicted sex offenders in the austin area. (even helped send one back to jail because of it) (helped save a few children that were in the "grooming" stage with a convicted sex offender) Anybody that knows the name of a convicted sex offender living in Albert Lea (or around Albert Lea) please private message me with their name (or post their name here) Parents have a right to know! |
My only concern with this P.P. is that you make ABSOLUTELY certain that the person you are saying is a child molester is actually that and not someone who is being punished because of someone elses "grudge" against them. You will set yourself up for trouble otherwise. I doubt highly that you wouldn't check this information but I just wanted to voice my own view on that. Keep up the good work.
Now Dan as for better community notification I have a couple of ideas and would be wondering if you had some time to sit down over coffee and discuss them and perhaps fine tune them and mayhaps see if it is a good idea. Let me know.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 26 2006,2:57 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Feb. 26 2006,2:00pm) |
| My only concern with this P.P. is that you make ABSOLUTELY certain that the person you are saying is a child molester is actually that and not someone who is being punished because of someone elses "grudge" against them. You will set yourself up for trouble otherwise. I doubt highly that you wouldn't check this information but I just wanted to voice my own view on that. Keep up the good work. |
Every convicted sex offender is cross referenced using online background checks, and back issues of the Austin Daily Herald before we post a picture.
I was hoping we could do the same over here, so if anybody knows of a convicted sex offender or is not sure if someone they know is a convicted sex offender, please private message me and I will verify the information and then post it!
Also if you have a chance to speak with Repdan (or if you read this Repdan) ask him to take a look at the bill Assistant Majority Leader Jeff Johnson is working on. My question is will that bill disclose all offenders whose victims are children or not?
That is my main focus right now, if the victim of a sex offender is a child, the sex offender should be listed and held accountable.
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 26 2006,5:32 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Feb. 26 2006,1:24pm) |
| Glad you seek the truth. These people have no protections that others don't. They are subject and should be to the same treatment in the papers and else where as the DUI offender. |
Here is part of newspaper article in the star tribune where they are talking about listing sex offenders:
"Such a policy would need to withstand potential legal challenges by offenders who had agreed to plead guilty to crimes partly in exchange for not having their identities and locations revealed to the general public", said McClung.
I am wondering how many people who are charged with DUI's, Assaults, Drug Crimes, Theft, and other crimes are given the option of not having their identities and locations revealed to the general public if they plead guilty?
Truth hurts when the Truth thinks about all the children child molesters can prey on because the child molesters plead guilty in exchange for not having their identities revealed!
Posted by nphilbro on Feb. 26 2006,7:32 pm
Here's what my state has done to warn its neighbors of it neighbors. It's a very good site.< http://ml.waspc.org/Accept.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2Findex.aspx >
There was also a front page story this morning about the 1 - that's right, 1 officer that monitors these people.
< http://www.thenewstribune.com/ >
It's a feature column but a good read. There's information on there that I wasn't aware of. They always post new information in the paper when a level III offender moves.
I'll look for the recent state law...
Posted by nphilbro on Feb. 26 2006,7:44 pm
I can't find it the link to the new law. It's all over our news- yet not a single search comes up with anything on the state legislature's new move.Maybe someone here knows how I can search deeper into state and news reporting (outside of MN) other than google.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 26 2006,8:56 pm
Here is a quote from the newspaper link mentioned above in nphilbro's post. "It’s the “forewarned is forearmed” philosophy: You can take precautions if you know where registered sex offenders live; and they’re more likely to behave if they know you know", say police and offenders themselves.
Posted by Replicant on Feb. 26 2006,10:33 pm
| Quote (nphilbro @ Feb. 26 2006,7:44pm) |
| Maybe someone here knows how I can search deeper into state and news reporting (outside of MN) other than google. |
If you're looking for news reports referring to your area, try < http://www.topix.net/ > and just put in the zip code, city or topic you're interested in. It pulls up some interesting stuff and you get to see where else your city/town is getting publicity (good or bad).
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 26 2006,11:12 pm
< anybody know what all this means? >< another interesting bill >
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 26 2006,11:51 pm
I have a question for Repdan:Why was this not taken off the 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) before it passed?
2) requires the commissioner of corrections to grant supervised release to sex offenders serving life sentences when so directed by the Sex Offender Review Board (SORB)
The motion passed in the House (131 to 3) on May 23, 2005.
Nobody questioned letting convicted sex offenders doing life sentences be released?
Do other convicted felons have the same right if they are doing a life sentence?
or do only convicted sex offenders have that right?
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 27 2006,10:20 am
| Quote |
| George, Taylor's Falls, Minnesota has just passed a very strict ordinance for level three sex offenders. Soon to extend to level two. In a nut shell it bans them from living with in the city, including schools, churches and bus stops. It forbids them to participate in anything that allows them to dress up (like Halloween or Christmas) or be near children. Saying the cities top priority for the city is to keep its residents safe, this is the first one of its kind in Minnesota. Have your city officials take a look. Sue Jeffers |
< http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_054011148.html >
Posted by Wareagle11B on Feb. 27 2006,3:14 pm
The problem with an ordinance like that one Geo is .... What happens when they can no longer live within city limits? Where do they go and what reason do they then have to continue to report their location so they can be monitored. To me this is a seriously drastic step that should have been more thought out. Eventually what will happen is these criminals will move out to even more rural areas and thus become harder to find and also more able to commit another act of sexual deprivation. That is by no means what anybody wants.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 27 2006,3:32 pm
THE ASSOCIATED PRESSArticle Published: 02/24/06, 12:06 pm
PIERRE – Gov. Mike Rounds announced today that he has signed a package of bills that will increase penalties on sex offenders and allow authorities to keep closer tabs on them after release from prison.
A key measure will establish areas where people who are required to register as sex offenders cannot live or loiter. Those 500-foot safety zones would be drawn around schools, parks, public playgrounds and public swimming pools.
The restriction was approved by South Dakota legislators largely in response to a 2005 Iowa law that sets up 2,000-foot zones in that state. Legislators were told that the Iowa law has been forcing that state’s sex offenders to move into South Dakota, especially in small communities near the border between the two states.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 27 2006,3:42 pm
I agree with Wareagle on a law that would require 2,000 ft. or 2,500 ft. because of the reason stated in his post. But I do not think that convicted sex offenders should be allowed to live directly next to schools, daycares, or city parks. I also do not think that convicted sex offenders should be able to live directly across the street from schools, daycares, or city parks. (and I have been told that is happening right now in Albert Lea)
That is why I found the South Dakota 500 ft. law a very well thought out step in protecting children.
If convicted sex offenders can sit in the comfort of their own home and fantasize about children they can watch from their living room, what will start happening when these convicted sex offenders start acting out their sick fantasy involving children?
Posted by repdan on Feb. 27 2006,8:20 pm
| Quote (TheTruth @ Feb. 26 2006,11:51pm) |
| I have a question for Repdan: Why was this not taken off the 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) before it passed? 2) requires the commissioner of corrections to grant supervised release to sex offenders serving life sentences when so directed by the Sex Offender Review Board (SORB) The motion passed in the House (131 to 3) on May 23, 2005. Nobody questioned letting convicted sex offenders doing life sentences be released? Do other convicted felons have the same right if they are doing a life sentence? or do only convicted sex offenders have that right? |
can you send me a link so I can check this for you. I believe this is what allows us to have what is called an indeterminal sentence, which means, they may been released for some reason but we reserve the right to keep close tabs on them. I don't know of any other offender that this happens to. This would be for people convicted before we changed the law to life without parole.
Posted by puzzledwomen on Feb. 27 2006,9:48 pm
They say that the level one offenders are less likly to reoffend then the level threes how do we know, how do we know that these people wont reoffend i mean they are getting off by doing it once and they may think that ohh I got off easy the last time i will get off again the person that drive the school bus may be a sex offender and you dont know it or that nice neighbor that has that cute dog could be. we really need to know who these people are because they are proubly going to reoffend. Psycholoigst say that people that are abused as child are more likely to abuse their children that is also true for people that are sexually abbused as children they are more likely to sexualy abbuse someone just because they were abbused.
Posted by TheTruth on Feb. 27 2006,11:21 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Feb. 27 2006,8:20pm) | ||
can you send me a link so I can check this for you. I believe this is what allows us to have what is called an indeterminal sentence, which means, they may been released for some reason but we reserve the right to keep close tabs on them. I don't know of any other offender that this happens to. This would be for people convicted before we changed the law to life without parole. |
What is the difference between a life sentence and life without parole?
So convicted sex offenders get a break where regular convicts don't?
The bill I mentioned above is the same one that says this:
Prohibits offenders convicted of domestic abuse from being electronically monitored.
Again the name of it is 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill)
This bill has a lot of good things on it
, and only a few bad.Nobody questioned the few bad things on this bill when it was in the house?
The information I received says you supported a motion for this bill?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 27 2006,11:46 pm
anybody go to the city council meeting tonight?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Feb. 28 2006,4:26 pm
HELP WANTED!!I am looking for members from all of the city wards to work with me on a sex offender issue.
If you are interested in HELPING Albert Lea PROTECT the CHILDREN of this community please contact me!
Posted by The Game on Feb. 28 2006,4:43 pm
| Quote (TheTruth @ Feb. 27 2006,11:21pm) |
| What is the difference between a life sentence and life without parole? So convicted sex offenders get a break where regular convicts don't? |
If I remember correctly, A life sentence is 72 standard years. That is why you hear of people getting 2 or 3 consecutive life sentences. Just to make sure they NEVER see the light of day because of manditory time that has to be served. Even if a person gets a life sentence, they can still come up for parole in X many years. Life without parole is just that. 72 years in prison.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 01 2006,12:00 pm
from the city council meeting minutes available < right here > City Attorney Schwab stated that the State of Iowa has designated exclusion zones which prohibit a sex offender from living within a certain distance from these locations. Iowa is currently being sued in federal district court over this issue and he is waiting for the outcome of this case.
Does anybody know what case he is talking about? I was hoping to follow it in the news but I am having a hard time finding anyting about it?
< The only thing I found was this? >
Posted by studystudent on Mar. 01 2006,6:39 pm
I just wanted to share something else I learned in Social Problems at school."The child molester, or more scientifically, the pedophile, is a person whose major interest in life is to find children to use for sexual gratification. Most of the time molesters are male. Their victims may be male or female. Because they are constantly seeking new victims, molesters frequent areas where children are available. Such places as parks, playgrounds, schools, movie theaters, shopping malls, arcades, and carnivals are favorite places to search for potential victims."
That quote is taken from my social problems textbook which quoted someone named Judith Cooney with the findings.
Posted by puzzledwomen on Mar. 01 2006,8:09 pm
The Truth: a life sentence is just when your in prison for life with the chance of an appeal and a life sentence with out parole you are in there for life and that you dont have the chance of ever getting out.
Posted by munchie on Mar. 02 2006,2:28 am
| Quote (studystudent @ Mar. 01 2006,6:39pm) |
| I just wanted to share something else I learned in Social Problems at school. "The child molester, or more scientifically, the pedophile, is a person whose major interest in life is to find children to use for sexual gratification. Most of the time molesters are male. Their victims may be male or female. Because they are constantly seeking new victims, molesters frequent areas where children are available. Such places as parks, playgrounds, schools, movie theaters, shopping malls, arcades, and carnivals are favorite places to search for potential victims." That quote is taken from my social problems textbook which quoted someone named Judith Cooney with the findings. |
Why are they allowed to live next to schools and daycares? I have to question that everytime I think about it? Why can't that be prevented? Why? Why are they allowed anywhere near these places? Why?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 02 2006,5:53 pm
Hey Repdan,The monkey or ape (whatever it was) e-mail you sent me was a good laugh!
could you update us on anything in the House dealing with sex offenders?
any better community notification bills?
Let us know!
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 02 2006,7:38 pm
Public service announcement:Parents Have A Right To Know!!
1 go to < http://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/sor.cfm >
2. click on “I agree” at the very bottom
3. enter WIESER where it says last name
4. click on "find"
5. click on "details"
6. If this man is your neighbor I am curious if you were notified?
This message brought to you by parents who care!
Posted by repdan on Mar. 02 2006,8:40 pm
| Quote (TheTruth @ Feb. 27 2006,11:21pm) | ||||
What is the difference between a life sentence and life without parole? So convicted sex offenders get a break where regular convicts don't? The bill I mentioned above is the same one that says this: Prohibits offenders convicted of domestic abuse from being electronically monitored. Again the name of it is 2005 House Bill 1 (Public Safety Omnibus Bill) This bill has a lot of good things on it , and only a few bad.Nobody questioned the few bad things on this bill when it was in the house? The information I received says you supported a motion for this bill? |
Do you really think we would be "softer" on them then other criminals? HF 1 make is tougher on them and for the first time uses life without parol, but we can't change the sentence of someone who was sentenced before the law change..requiring supervised release, means no un supervised release. We are going to used civil commitment on more and more of these guys.
Posted by TheTruth on Mar. 03 2006,9:35 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Mar. 02 2006,7:38pm) |
| Public service announcement: Parents Have A Right To Know!! 1 go to < http://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/sor.cfm > 2. click on “I agree” at the very bottom 3. enter WIESER where it says last name 4. click on "find" 5. click on "details" 6. If this man is your neighbor I am curious if you were notified? This message brought to you by parents who care! |
How am I suppose to know if he is my neighbor?
The site shows his picture, his crimes, but not his address?
Posted by Newbie on Mar. 03 2006,12:50 pm
I think the point was to see if anyone recognized his face. If someone does they could let people know where he lives.
Posted by Gabe on Mar. 03 2006,12:55 pm
811 Bridge Ave
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 03 2006,5:01 pm
| Quote (Gabe @ Mar. 03 2006,12:55pm) |
| 811 Bridge Ave |
If this information is correct, that puts another convicted sex offender right by Hawthorne School.
Does anyone know if that address is correct?
What is it about that neighborhood that draws convicted sex offenders?
Why do they want to live by Hawthorne Elementary School?
Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 03 2006,6:34 pm
Maybe cities should have ghettos where our undesireables would be required to live, away from any schools.
Posted by TheTruth on Mar. 03 2006,10:24 pm
| Quote (Botto 82 @ Mar. 03 2006,6:34pm) |
| Maybe cities should have ghettos |
ghettos equal cheap rent!
If a majority of the undesireables were in the same spot, would it be easier to keep track of everything bad? Would it be easier to protect society from the bad?
Posted by studystudent on Mar. 04 2006,7:58 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Mar. 02 2006,7:38pm) |
| Public service announcement: Parents Have A Right To Know!! 1 go to < http://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/sor.cfm > 2. click on “I agree” at the very bottom 3. enter WIESER where it says last name 4. click on "find" 5. click on "details" 6. If this man is your neighbor I am curious if you were notified? This message brought to you by parents who care! |
Can something be done about this?
This guy is listed on a Illinois website and not listed in a Minnesota website, but he lives in Minnesota?
Maybe Repdan can do something about this?
Posted by repdan on Mar. 04 2006,8:55 am
| Quote (TheTruth @ Mar. 03 2006,10:24pm) | ||
ghettos equal cheap rent! If a majority of the undesireables were in the same spot, would it be easier to keep track of everything bad? Would it be easier to protect society from the bad? |
Right on. Which is why the 2000 rule deal is bad for us. In the states that have it the push comes the urban core because the want to get rid of them and the 2000 foot rule does that. 80% of the level 3 offenders live in Minneapolis, St. Paul or Duluth, and the main reason....cheap rent.
A good example of why we need to make sure any changes keep us safer and not the other way around even though the idea sounds good. Like many things there will some good and some bad, the question is does the good outway the bad.
In this case, you move most of them away from schools..good. The bad..we end up having more level 3's living in our area, the number of them not reporting where the level increases (in Iowa it doubled) which increases the odds they will reoffend. The bad for us by far outways the good.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 04 2006,1:29 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Mar. 04 2006,8:55am) |
| Right on. Which is why the 2000 rule deal is bad for us. |
I agree with you that a 2,000 ft. rule is bad.
But I do not think that convicted sex offenders should live right next to a school or daycare, and I do not think that convicted sex offenders should live directly across the street from schools and daycares.
Repdan,
Can you update us on any bills involving sex offenders?
(bills you like, and bills you don't like)
What do you think of bill HF2700?
Thank You
Posted by Beyonce_clone on Mar. 04 2006,3:49 pm
Watch Channel 3 KIMT news at 6pm and 10pm sex offenders in albert lea on the news?
Posted by hairhertz on Mar. 04 2006,9:10 pm
beyonce, please update us out of towners, thanks!
Posted by FlyguyAL on Mar. 04 2006,9:50 pm
Here ya go, a news story out of Mason City, KIMT news channel 3. < Taking a Stand Against Sex Offenders >
Posted by gonefishn on Mar. 05 2006,9:44 am
| Quote (FlyguyAL @ Mar. 04 2006,9:50pm) |
| Here ya go, a news story out of Mason City, KIMT news channel 3. < Taking a Stand Against Sex Offenders > |
I thought laws changed in the last couple of years so bad guys like these types couldn't live by schools?
Posted by munchie on Mar. 05 2006,4:32 pm
I am glad Ablert Lea is going to keep sex offenders away from daycares and schools! They should ban them from areas like the Rock, kid Church, movie theater, kids library, and the Y too.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 05 2006,8:20 pm
Cool link, did my address, looks like freckles
Posted by bancgrl on Mar. 05 2006,8:32 pm
| Quote (Self-Banished @ Mar. 05 2006,8:20pm) |
| Cool link, did my address, looks like freckles |
What link?
Is Richard VanderWaert on the list?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 05 2006,9:34 pm
| Quote (bancgrl @ Mar. 05 2006,8:32pm) |
| Richard VanderWaert |
Couple Questions:
Is he from Albert Lea, about how old is he, and what did he do?
Posted by hairhertz on Mar. 05 2006,10:34 pm
two thumbs up for Theodore Paulson
Posted by studystudent on Mar. 06 2006,12:05 pm
I saw Channel 6 news at Riverland talking about sex offenders with a fellow student today. I think this is a big issue now? and an important issue also!
Posted by The Game on Mar. 06 2006,2:05 pm
Just finished another shoot with KTTC on the request for a city ordinance. Look for that one tonight on the evening news.
Posted by Replicant on Mar. 06 2006,2:45 pm
Here is another interesting site with numerous links to various resources...< http://www.cybertipline.com/ >
Run by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
Posted by The Game on Mar. 06 2006,5:28 pm
Here is the story: < Limit sex offenders >
Posted by Beyonce_clone on Mar. 06 2006,6:51 pm
< KAAL 6 NEWS STORY >
Posted by TheodorePaulson on Mar. 07 2006,10:22 am
Anybody that wants to help with the petition or sign the petition please contact me. Thank You!
Posted by TheodorePaulson on Mar. 07 2006,1:38 pm
| Quote (TheodorePaulson @ Mar. 07 2006,10:22am) |
| Anybody that wants to help with the petition or sign the petition please contact me. Thank You! |
e-mail:
Theodore.Paulson@acad.riverland.edu
Posted by The Game on Mar. 07 2006,3:09 pm
Score one for the kids!MySpace.com Joke Leads to Sex Arrest
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
FONTANA, Calif. — A group of boys who posed as a 15-year-old girl for an Internet prank ended up helping police arrest a 48-year-old man who tried to meet the fictitious teenager for sex, authorities said.
The five boys had created a fake profile of a girl on MySpace.com — a social networking Web site — to cheer up a friend who had recently broken up with his girlfriend.
But soon, a man began sending messages to the "girl" and their conversations began to have sexual overtones, said Fontana police Sgt. William Megenney.
The man also sent the "girl" his picture and arranged to meet her at a public park. The boys went to the park and, when the man arrived, they called police.
Michael Ramos, 48, of Fontana, was booked into West Valley Detention Center on Monday for investigation of felony attempted lewd and lascivious conduct with a child and for an outstanding warrant, Megenney said.
He was being held at the West Valley Detention Center on $105,000 bail, according to the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Web site.
A dispatcher who answered the telephone at the center early Tuesday said the facility does not allow phone interviews with inmates. It was not immediately known whether Ramos had a lawyer.
Two men were arrested last week in what prosecutors said were the first federal sexual assault charges involving MySpace. The unrelated cases involved Connecticut girls who were 11 and 14, the FBI said.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 07 2006,3:09 pm
Sex Offender Restrictions Reach St. AnsgarMASON CITY,Iowa(KIMT)
Monday, March 6, 2006
Monday night the St. Ansgar City Council passed the second reading and waived the third reading of a new sex offender ordinance.
The new law will be more restrictive than the current state law.
Police Chief Lance Shutjer said there was no opposition at the meeting and called the ordinance good for the community.
Posted by big_sam on Mar. 07 2006,7:46 pm
< internet perves >
Posted by TheTruth on Mar. 07 2006,9:12 pm
| Quote (TheodorePaulson @ Mar. 07 2006,1:38pm) | ||
e-mail: Theodore.Paulson@acad.riverland.edu |
Thanks for the contact information and thanks for the petitions!
I am all for anything that will help keep these child molesters away from the children!
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 07 2006,10:15 pm
Repdan,I am still waiting for an update from you about any new bills regarding sex offenders?
Like I posted earlier, any of them you like or dislike?
Thanks for your time
Posted by raven on Mar. 08 2006,7:12 am
i will also be avalible if people want to sign the petition as well e-mail me @ raven3112000@yahoo.com or pm me with your name and i will come to you if need be thanks
Posted by TheodorePaulson on Mar. 08 2006,12:14 pm
| Quote (raven @ Mar. 08 2006,7:12am) |
| i will also be avalible if people want to sign the petition as well e-mail me @ raven3112000@yahoo.com or pm me with your name and i will come to you if need be thanks |
Thank You!!
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 08 2006,8:06 pm
I have seen alot of petitions in local businesses, I am glad the community of Albert Lea is stepping up and pushing for a solution to a problem. The children should have a right to be protected!I wonder how many businesses have the petition available for people to sign?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 09 2006,9:50 am
< Click on this to see what they are doing in Austin, maybe we should do this on this forum? >
Posted by TheTruth on Mar. 09 2006,10:21 am
I heard about a family that just moved to Albert Lea and bought a house. This family has children. A few weeks after this family moved in to their new home in their new city they started hearing rumors about a sex offender living in the neighborhood.This new family in town finds out they have a sex offender living right next door. This sex offender didn't live a couple blocks away, and didn't live down the street. This SEX OFFENDER lives RIGHT NEXT DOOR!! Why were they not notified before they bought the house?
I want to know the name of the Realtor that sold them the house!
I want to know what can be done so things like this do not happen!
Why didn't anybody tell them before they bought the house, especially since they have children?
Posted by The Game on Mar. 09 2006,11:57 am
Cuz he is an iowa offender and a lower level and your police department is under a gag order from the DOC and state law.
Posted by The Game on Mar. 09 2006,5:01 pm
US court OKs computer searches for child pornThu Mar 9, 2006 5:35 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Police may search computer hard drives for child pornography if their owners subscribe to Web sites selling the images, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday.
There is a "fair probability" customers of child pornography Web sites receive or download the illegal images, opening the door for police searches, according to the ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The ruling affirmed a lower court's decision supporting an affidavit by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its probe of Lolitagurls.com Web site and subscriber Micah Gourde.
Gourde had sought to suppress more than 100 images of child pornography seized from his home computer, arguing an FBI affidavit did not establish probable cause he had violated child pornography laws to justify a search of his computers.
The San Francisco-based court took up his appeal. The panel voted nine to two in ruling that a district court had properly declined to suppress the evidence.
The majority opinion by Judge M. Margaret McKeown held there was a "reasonable inference" that supported a "fair probability" Gourde had downloaded banned images.
She noted the owner of Lolitagurls.com admitted to selling child pornography over the Web site and Gourde subscribed to it with a credit card and had unlimited access to its images. Additionally, she held computer technology assured any images he received would leave a trail for investigators.
"It neither strains logic nor defies common sense to conclude, based on the totality of these circumstances, that someone who paid for access for two months to a Web site that actually purveyed child pornography probably had viewed or downloaded such images onto his computer," McKeown added.
Gourde's attorney, Assistant Federal Public Defender Colin Fieman, said he would discuss with Gourde whether to appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Posted by gonefishn on Mar. 09 2006,9:10 pm
anybody know which business in town has a copy of the petition? Could somebody post where to go so me and and my neighbors can drop in and sign it when we have a chance?
Posted by GEOKARJO on Mar. 09 2006,9:45 pm
Eddies Bar or the Web Room
Posted by The Game on Mar. 10 2006,10:20 am
There is also a copy of it at the Power 96 studios at 109 E. Clark St for those of you up town. Its on the front desk.
Posted by TheTruth on Mar. 10 2006,7:04 pm
Anybody know what the city council will do about the sex offender ordinance?
Posted by repdan on Mar. 10 2006,7:12 pm
| Quote (The Game @ Mar. 09 2006,11:57am) |
| Cuz he is an iowa offender and a lower level and your police department is under a gag order from the DOC and state law. |
They could do a level 2 notice if they wanted. FYI
Posted by repdan on Mar. 10 2006,7:22 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Mar. 07 2006,10:15pm) |
| Repdan, I am still waiting for an update from you about any new bills regarding sex offenders? Like I posted earlier, any of them you like or dislike? Thanks for your time |
None have made it to any committees on which I serve nor to the floor. They will come to the ways and means committee on which I serve at somepoint.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Mar. 10 2006,11:21 pm
Has there been any talk or word floating around on what kind of measures may be set like distance from elementary schools, etc.?
Posted by Wareagle11B on Mar. 11 2006,9:58 am
I am all for the city having an ordinance to keep these sexual predators away from our children. What we need to remember is that a law that can, and most likely will, be challenged in court does us no good especially if we lose. The petition says that we don't want them around schools, parks, etc. I have no problem with this but what we are forgetting is that by creating this ordinance/law we severely limit the options for where they can live. This could then send them "underground" where they will no longer report where they live. Once this happens, and considering we live in a rural area, this creates an even more dangerous situation. Look at AL and all the parks we have and then the schools as well. We would basically be shutting off entire neighborhoods to these people and while this isn't necessarily bad it isn't the solution either.How is someone who lives 12 miles out in the country to know that the man or woman who just bought the old farmhouse just a mile up the road is a level 2 sexual predator if they do not report their address to the authorities? This could allow the predator to become an even larger issue because of the remoteness of where they live and the fact that the neighbors would have no clue who this person is. Forcing them into the country or even smaller communities is not what I intended when I brought this to the attention of the city council. I do NOT want them near our kids by any means but neither do I want our problem to create an even bigger problem for a communities like Glenville, Myrtle etc.
Better community notification and information by the state and counties is a serious step forward but making sure that whatever ordinance the city of Albert Lea enacts is legal through and through is going to save us all some serious headaches. Yes I know that other cities in MN have begun to enact ordinances but they have yet to be legally challenged in a court. Let's hope that our "esteemed"
city attorney can write an ordinance that will stand the fires of a court challenge should it go that way.
Posted by TheodorePaulson on Mar. 11 2006,2:37 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Mar. 11 2006,9:58am) |
| I am all for the city having an ordinance to keep these sexual predators away from our children. |
Thank You
Posted by Wareagle11B on Mar. 11 2006,3:01 pm
You need to understand Ted that while I am for a city ordinance I am NOT for shipping our problems onto a smaller even more rural town. Think about Glenville, Myrtle, Gordonsville etc, not to mention the thousands of other small towns around MN, and what could happen should a predator go "underground" and move there and then not report where they live as the law states now. This only has the potential for disaster. I know that if this scenario were to become reality and a child were to be harmed as a result of an ordinance that forced them out of Albert Lea and into the country well I would feel pretty low. I do not want this scenario to ever come to pass but with the current state of things around MN this could become reality before we know it. We as parents have to know where our children are at ALL times and who they are with. That is our responsibility and having better information passed down from the state/county level would make it easier for us to monitor what neighborhoods our kids are playing in. It would allow us to inform our kids, when they are old enough to understand, that there are dangerous people living near or around the areas they play or hangout. Better communication from the state/county is a major step we need to be fighting for as well as a citywide ordinance.
Posted by TheodorePaulson on Mar. 11 2006,4:44 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Mar. 11 2006,3:01pm) |
We as parents have to know where our children are at ALL times and who they are with. That is our responsibility |
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Mar. 11 2006,3:01pm) |
| and having better information passed down from the state/county level would make it easier for us to monitor what neighborhoods our kids are playing in. It would allow us to inform our kids, when they are old enough to understand, that there are dangerous people living near or around the areas they play or hangout. |
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Mar. 11 2006,3:01pm) |
Better communication from the state/county is a major step we need to be fighting for as well as a citywide ordinance. |
Since we don't know where all the child molesters live in this community, I atleast want to know they are not living right next to where the children of this community go to school!
Posted by The Game on Mar. 11 2006,9:05 pm
That would be the point of the whole thing, I would say wait until the ordinance is drafted and worded. The initial ones that have been written WILL stand up to a lagal challenge as they are not so restrictive to send the offenders "Underground" There are many housing options available and it does NOT shut off perople from living in entire neighborhoods. I would challenge you to show me a map that would severly limit or infringe on the constitutional right for someone to live in an area that would be TOTALLY shut off to them. Directly across from a Pool Park, daycare or School does NOT shut off entire neighborhoods. It does nto say that they cant live one block away from one. Options are available and if people in St. Paul or the State wont release the information, we are left to look after ourselves and the kids. Our city charter allows us to do that. You'll see in Mondays Trib and I will be making points that I am sure the city attorney will back up that will show how it can be done legally and without having to spend tons of cash defending the ordinance.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 12 2006,1:41 am
This information is from Fox News Channel:Molesters Often Strike Again
By Catherine Donaldson
The reason many convicted sex offenders go out and molest more children, say sociologists and criminologists, is similar to why alcoholics continue to drink.
“Their sexual preference is for children. They have a compulsion to molest children,” said Keith F. Durkin, a criminologist at Ohio Northern University and an expert in the study of pedophilia. “Many, if not all, will molest children until the day they die. They’re dangerous and they’re going to reoffend.”
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 12 2006,5:00 pm
| Quote (Ole1kanobe @ Mar. 10 2006,11:21pm) |
| Has there been any talk or word floating around on what kind of measures may be set like distance from elementary schools, etc.? |
The petition going around says people do not want sex offenders living right next to schools, daycares, or parks.
and people do not want sex offenders living directly across the street from schools, daycares. or parks.
Alot of people thought laws already existed, but they don't!
What kind of distance would you suggest?
Posted by TheTruth on Mar. 12 2006,11:16 pm
I love being an American!The power of petition!
Posted by nphilbro on Mar. 12 2006,11:44 pm
Does Minnesota have a "state initiative" law? California and Washington both do, and I know there are many other states that do as well. This means that a citizen can craft a law or ordinance through the petition process that will go to general election ballot and automatically make state law if passed by 50+%. Now, there are many challenges to most of these and most are struck down in court because the language isn't legal enough. However, they all bring up issues of importance to state lawmakers and most "I's" are passed by state senate one way or another.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 13 2006,3:18 pm
We can create ordinances and remove them in Albert Lea because it's in our Charter and we're a home rule charter city, I'm not sure if state law allows it.Here's a link to that chapter in the Charter.
< http://info.albertlea.com/stat1/5/index.htm >
The address will likely change in the near future. It's on my old albertlea.com server and I haven't gotten a chance to move it to the server farm.
Posted by The Game on Mar. 13 2006,5:35 pm
Seeing as not many people were able to get the paper today, here is the story.City Council to consider sex offender restrictions
By Joseph Marks, Tribune staff writer
Monday, March 13, 2006 9:24 AM CST
Two Albert Lea citizens have been seeking signatures for a petition that tonight they will bring to the Albert Lea City Council. The petition calls for a ballot measure to limit areas where people forced to register for committing sex crimes may live inside the city limits.
However, petitioners Ron Hunter of Power 96 FM radio station and Theodore Paulson plan to ask the City Council tonight to outright pass an ordinance doing the same thing, thereby skipping the need for a ballot measure. The ordinance the two men are requesting would prohibit sex offenders from living next to or across the street from day care centers, schools, parks and city pools, according to Paulson.
Hunter and Paulson have formed a committee of five eligible voters, the first step in a process to bring the question of where sex offenders can live directly to the voters in a ballot referendum this November. To get it on the ballot, Hunter and Paulson must collect signatures from about 890 eligible voters living in Albert Lea, a number equal to 10 percent of votes cast in the last general municipal election.
Paulson had collected about 225 signatures last Wednesday and said he expected to have twice as many by the time he spoke to councilors this evening.
“If this comes to a referendum, anyone who votes would be a fool to vote against it,” Hunter said. “If they can pass this as an ordinance on a local level, it's better for everyone in the community and less time for us.”
City Attorney Steve Schwab said he is researching and corresponding with other communities who have passed similar ordinances because of constitutional concerns involved in limiting where people can live.
“It's probably legal as long as the exclusions aren't so big that you exclude them entirely from the city,” he said. “At some point it can become unconstitutional if the exclusions are too broad.”
Schwab said at the direction of city councilors he could write an ordinance that he believed would withstand a constitutional challenge.
Several councilors expressed interest in passing a local ordinance during a pre-agenda meeting Thursday.
“We should begin discussing this immediately and push to pass something locally,” said Councilor George Marin. Councilors Vern Rasmussen and John Severtson also said they favored passing an ordinance of some kind.
Councilor Randy Erdman said he felt the issue should be handled at a state level, but he would follow the council's lead if it chose to pass an ordinance.
Two readings of a proposed ordinance and a public hearing are required before an ordinance is passed by the city council.
Petitions are available at Power 96 at 109 East Clark Street in Albert Lea. Those wishing to circulate a petition or who have questions about the petition may contact Ron Hunter at 373-9600 or Theodore Paulson at 507-402-3890.
(Contact Joseph Marks at joseph.marks@albertleatribune.com or at 379-3435.)
Posted by CPSREP on Mar. 13 2006,6:25 pm
Just a note to everyone following this story... It does seem quite ironic that Ron Hunter has so much to do with this particular subject as in 2004 he himself was under investigation for child abuse and neglect... Although I do believe in what needs to be done to make a difference as I work very closely with a lot of registered offenders... I do not believe Ron is the proper spokesperson to represent this particular subject.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Mar. 13 2006,6:32 pm
Investigation is a far cry from conviction. Was there charges were filed against him as a result of the investigation? If not why are you bringing it up. Your job requires confidentiality.
Posted by The Game on Mar. 13 2006,6:36 pm
CPS ...And what ever happened with that? Apparently nothing, and a lot of people get investigated for many a thing. I will say that it was an ex girlfriend that had a much bigger problem. Allegations are made each day, we all make them, but looks like there was no problem there.
Posted by CPSREP on Mar. 13 2006,6:45 pm
Well there is no mention of anyone such as an ex girlfriend in the report, so the blame game is not going to go very far here.... I just want to see this happen and I believe a more reputable spokesperson could represent the community better.
Posted by The Game on Mar. 13 2006,7:01 pm
So, what your saying is guilty ‘til proven innocent huh? and seeing as there were no kids of his own til 2006 it's quite puzzling there is no mention of a mother. Very odd...
Posted by CPSREP on Mar. 13 2006,7:08 pm
Ahem... No mention of the mother being under any kind of investigation... As I said before as well as in my reply to your private email... I take my postion very seriously and believe in the attention you are giving this subject. I just feel that though I would hate to see you stop working on this, I would also hate to see it not be taken seriously because of these unfortunate events in 2004.
Posted by The Game on Mar. 13 2006,10:10 pm
The events you mention I dont believe were THAT unfortunate. Shocking to me...yes, shocking to others..yes. Were the allegations true? No, if they were you know that I would have been charged and had a day in court. Do I feel like working on this issue any more... Yes and No. I don't have a thing to hide, yet you make me feel as though I should be ashamed because a 3rd party leveled serious yet odd stories against me. My skin is thicker than that and the allegations proved to be unfounded. I applaud the work you do. I'm sure not easy at all, but I am gald there are folks like you doing it and working for their protection.
Posted by bob on Mar. 13 2006,10:18 pm
hey cps if you really take your job as seriously as you say you do then why would you comprise your job with a breech of confidenialty that comes with your job
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 13 2006,10:26 pm
| Quote (CPSREP @ Mar. 13 2006,6:45pm) |
| I just want to see this happen |
If you want to see this ordinance happen, please get involved!
Do what you can to push for this ordinance to take effect. You are listed as an Austin resident, why don't you push for this ordinance over in Austin?
Posted by bob on Mar. 13 2006,10:33 pm
good point pre
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 13 2006,10:49 pm
So did anything happen at the council meeting tonight worth talking about?
Posted by bob on Mar. 13 2006,11:01 pm
great now there is a REALcps rep on here i'm guessing the other one wasn't REAL
Posted by REALcpsrep on Mar. 13 2006,11:01 pm
| Quote (CPSREP @ Mar. 13 2006,6:25pm) |
| Just a note to everyone following this story... It does seem quite ironic that ********* has so much to do with this particular subject as in 2004 he himself was under investigation for child abuse and neglect... Although I do believe in what needs to be done to make a difference as I work very closely with a lot of registered offenders... I do not believe ****** is the proper spokesperson to represent this particular subject. |
Hey cpsrep, stop your slander campaign. You can't silence the revolution with your lies!
If I find out you work for cps anywhere in Minnesota, good luck getting unemployment.
When I find out who you are, be prepared to have a lawyer.
I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING OR HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THE PERSON YOU MENTION IN YOUR POST BEING IN ANY CPS FILES. TAKE YOUR CHILDISH GAMES SOMEWHERE ELSE!
GAME OVER!
The community is lucky to have someone in the Media like Ron Hunter getting this issue out in the open, and not letting it fade away.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK RON!!
Posted by gonefishn on Mar. 13 2006,11:05 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Mar. 13 2006,10:49pm) |
| So did anything happen at the council meeting tonight worth talking about? |
I want to know what happened with the sex offender thing also? (and that sludge thing)
Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 13 2006,11:41 pm
| Quote (CPSREP @ Mar. 13 2006,6:25pm) |
| Just a note to everyone following this story... It does seem quite ironic that [edit] has so much to do with this particular subject as in 2004 he himself was under investigation for child abuse and neglect... Although I do believe in what needs to be done to make a difference as I work very closely with a lot of registered offenders... I do not believe [edit] is the proper spokesperson to represent this particular subject. |
Yeah, this post smells like BS to me. Sounds like you ought to identify yourself...
Posted by bob on Mar. 13 2006,11:54 pm
maybe geo will have the dept of homeland security check this one out
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 14 2006,12:57 am
< CHANNEL 6 NEWS >"Several Albert Lea residents are introducing a proposal tonight hoping to crack down on sex offenders living in the city"
"The petition is a call to create restriction zones around schools, parks and day cares to keep sex offenders out."
Posted by GEOKARJO on Mar. 14 2006,2:06 am
Yes we were victorious in this, thank you city council for taking the reigns and pushing this through. Now we need to adopt another law. State legislation required.Anyone selling illegal narcotics to anyone under the age of 18 will receive a mandatory 30 years in prison without parole.
Rep Dan please help this one.
Posted by TheTruth on Mar. 14 2006,11:04 am
Albert Lea Sex Offender Ordinance Victory?
Posted by TheTruth on Mar. 14 2006,11:05 am
When does the ordinance keeping child molesters away from schools take effect?
Posted by The Game on Mar. 14 2006,11:44 am
Here is the rundown from last night. With Marins input this will not be drug out til november where the politicians can use it for an election platform. I love what that man had to say and can only say God Bless the good pastor.Committee to draft sex offender ordinance
By Joseph Marks, Tribune staff writer
The Albert Lea City Council voted unanimously Monday to form a committee that will draft an ordinance prohibiting sex offenders from living within close proximity to schools, child-care centers, parks and public swimming pools inside city limits.
Councilor George Marin asked that the committee be directed to complete drafting the ordinance before the Albert Lea School District's summer break.
Albert Lea resident Theodore Paulson presented councilors with petitions he said contained 910 signatures requesting a ballot referendum to disallow sex offenders from living next door to or across the street from the listed public areas.
“Part of the reason I want this ordinance,” Paulson said, “is because the state doesn't notify us of who the offenders are or where they live. If I don't know where they live, I at least want to know they're not living right across the street from where my son goes to school.”
Several community members who spoke during the evening expressed anxiety about registered sex offenders they had learned were living in their neighborhoods through Iowa's registry Web site. Unlike Minnesota, Iowa releases the names of all registered sex offenders and does not assess their risk of re-offending.
Albert Lea police detective Frank Kohl, who handles the majority of city investigations that involve offenses committed against children, opposes the proposed ordinance.
“I'm not a fan of sex offenders,” Kohl said, “but I don't see how limiting where sex offenders live will reduce the threat. The majority of cases are offenses committed by someone in the home.”
Kohl expressed concern that an ordinance prohibiting sex offenders from living next to a park or school would not prohibit them from simply walking or driving there. He also mentioned that a large number of sexual predators find their victims on the Internet rather than in parks or playgrounds.
Councilor George Marin responded to Kohl's statements, saying, “If we could pass an ordinance to keep predators off the Internet and school benches, I'd be spearheading those efforts. We need a starting point to keep our children safe. Studies, to me, don't matter at this point. What matters is that schools, parks and day cares are at least safe zones that they can't live next door to.”
Ron Hunter, of Power 96 radio station, called the creation of the committee a positive action. Hunter worked with Paulson to gather signatures and lobby councilors to produce an ordinance.
“Councilor Marin's support and the timeline will really benefit this,” he said. “This being an election year, this could be a hot button issue.”
City Manager Victoria Simonsen said she envisions the committee comprising about 15 members, including City Attorney Steve Schwab, a city councilor, representatives from the Family Services Collaborative, the faith community, the Human Rights Commission, Freeborn County, the schools, child care agencies and the general public.
Simonsen said there is some doubt whether the signatures Paulson and Hunter gathered would be sufficient to bring the issue to a ballot referendum because of the vagueness of phrasing in the petition, among other issues. She told Paulson she was confident, though, that the committee would come up with an acceptable ordinance making the referendum unnecessary.
Posted by hymiebravo on Mar. 14 2006,2:16 pm
Congratulations! I'm impressed, way to go. I guess maybe the Albert Lea Discussion forum, might not be as "bad" as Soosie Said it was, after all. Hmmmnnn.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 14 2006,2:20 pm
| Quote |
With Marins input this will not be drug out til november where the politicians can use it for an election platform. I love what that man had to say and can only say God Bless the good pastor. |
When Marin was talking about having no problem walking all over these people's constitutional rights, I couldn't help but think of that saying... What Would Jesus Do?
Posted by Replicant on Mar. 14 2006,2:26 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Mar. 13 2006,10:49pm) |
| So did anything happen at the council meeting tonight worth talking about? |
Maybe you could ask Theodore Paulson if you happen to see him.
Posted by The Game on Mar. 14 2006,2:50 pm
C'mon Lib you have to be playing devils advocate here. Those convicted of felony crimes lost a few constitutional rights when they stripped the innocence from their victims. Like was sung in Baretta... "Don't do the crime if you cant do the time (don't do it... don't do it)"
Posted by TheTruth on Mar. 14 2006,9:11 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Mar. 14 2006,2:20pm) | ||
When Marin was talking about having no problem walking all over these people's constitutional rights, I couldn't help but think of that saying... What Would Jesus Do? |
I am glad somebody brought up the constitution. I was wondering if anybody educated in history could share with us what happened to a child molester during the time period when the constitution was being written?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 14 2006,11:28 pm
< City ordinance in the news! >
Posted by munchie on Mar. 15 2006,7:42 pm
So when exactly does this ordinance or committe pass this ordinance?
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 15 2006,11:11 pm
Interesting article from the NYTimes| Quote |
Iowa's Residency Rules Drive Sex Offenders Underground By MONICA DAVEY CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — One cornfield beyond the trim white farmhouse where the Boland family lives and a road sign warns, "Watch for children and dogs," is a faded motel. For years a layover for budget-conscious motorists and construction crews, the motel has lately become a disquieting symbol of what has gone wrong with Iowa's crackdown on sexual offenders of children. With just 24 rooms, the motel, the Ced-Rel, was home to 26 registered sex offenders by the start of March. "Nobody wants to have something associated with sex offenders right beside them," said Steve Boland, a farmer and father of two who learns about his newest neighbors every few weeks when sheriff's deputies stop by with photographs of them. "Us showing the kids some mug shots sure wasn't going to help," Mr. Boland said. "How were they going to remember that many faces?" The men have flocked to the Ced-Rel and other rural motels and trailer parks because no one else will, or can, have them. A new state law barring those convicted of sex crimes involving children from living within 2,000 feet of a school or day care center has brought unintended and disturbing consequences. It has rendered some offenders homeless and left others sleeping in cars or in the cabs of their trucks. And the authorities say that many have simply vanished from their sight, with nearly three times as many registered sex offenders considered missing since before the law took effect in September. "The truth is that we're starting to lose people," said Don Vrotsos, chief deputy for the Dubuque County sheriff's office and the man whose job it is to keep track of that county's 101 sex offenders. < complete article > |
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 15 2006,11:29 pm
Another interesting article from the NY Times:| Quote |
| Sex Predators Can't Be Saved by Andrew Vachss Originally published in the New York Times Westley Allan Dodd was scheduled to be hanged at 12:01 a.m. this morning at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla. Sentenced to execution for the torture-murder of three boys, Mr. Dodd has refused all efforts to appeal his case. He may not have exhausted his legal remedies, but he has certainly exhausted society's efforts at "rehabilitation." A chronic, calcified sexual sadist, Mr. Dodd stated in a recent court brief, "If I do escape, I promise you I will kill and rape again, and I will enjoy every minute of it." Mr. Dodd's threat demands a response because we know he is not unique. There can be no dispute that monsters live among us. The only question is what to do with them once they become known to us. The death penalty is not a response. Racially and economically biased and endlessly protracted, it returns little for its enormous economic and social costs. Though it is effective—the killer will not strike again—the death penalty is limited to murderers; it will not protect us from rapists and child molesters who are virtually assured of release and who are almost certain to commit their crimes again. If we do not intend to execute sex criminals, does our hope lie in killing their destructive impulses? Mr. Dodd and his ilk are sociopaths. They are characterized by a fundamental lack of empathy. All children are born pure egoists. They perceive their needs to the exclusion of all others. Only through socialization do they learn that some forms of gratification must be deferred and others denied. When a child's development is incomplete or perverted—and child abuse is the most dominant cause in that equation—he or she tends not to develop empathy. There's a missing card, one that cannot be put back in the deck once the personality is fully formed. While early childhood experiences may impel, they do not compel. In the end, evil is a matter of choice. Sociopaths can learn to project a veneer of civilization—for predators, it is part of their camouflage—but they will always lack the ability to feel any pain but their own, pursuing only self-gratification. Not all sociopaths choose sexual violence. For some, the outlet can be political or economic skullduggery. But those for whom blood or pain is the stimulus act no less efficiently and at a terrible and unacceptable cost. Some predatory sociopaths can be deterred. None can be rehabilitated, since they cannot return to a state that never existed. The concept of coercive therapy is a contradiction; successful psychiatric treatment requires participants, not mere recipients. What makes sexual predators so intractable and dangerous is that, as Mr. Dodd candidly acknowledged, they like what they do and intend to keep doing it. The obsession of sexual predators is typified in the case of Donald Chapman, a New Jersey rapist who was released in November after serving 12 years, the maximum for his crime. He underwent continual therapy in prison, and was utterly unaffected by it. He vows to continue to attack women—a threat that reflects his total absorption with sexual torture. As a result of his threat, he sits in his house in Wyckoff, N.J., surrounded by a 24-hour police guard. A 1992 study of 767 rapists and child molesters in Minnesota found those who completed psychiatric treatment were arrested more often for new sex crimes than those who had not been treated at all. A Canadian survey that tracked released child molesters for 20 years revealed a 43 percent recidivism rate regardless of the therapy. The difference between those simply incarcerated and those subjected to a full range of treatments appears statistically negligible. And the more violent and sadistic the offense, the more likely it is to be repeated. Another factor that thwarts rehabilitation is the need for offenders to seek higher and higher levels of stimulation. There is no observable waning of their desires over time: sexual predators do not outgrow their behavior. Thus, while most sadistic sex offenders are not first arrested for homicide, they may well try to murder someone in the future. What about traditional self-help programs? Should we concentrate on raising their self-esteem? Imprisoned predators receive as much fan mail as rock stars. They are courted by the news media, studied by devoted sociologists, their every word treasured as though profound. Their paintings are collected, their poetry published. Trading cards celebrate their bloody passage among us. I recently received a letter from a young woman who gushed that after a long exchange of letters, she was "granted visiting privileges" with Mr. Dodd and subsequently appeared on "Sally Jessy Raphael" "due to my relationship" with "Wes," who she believes is "sincere." So do I. We simply disagree about the object of his sincerity. Sexual predators are already narcissistic; they laugh behind their masks at our attempts to understand and rehabilitate them. We have earned their contempt by our belief that they can change—by our confusion of "crazy" with "dangerous," and "sick" with "sickening." If we don't intend to execute sexual predators, and we have no treatment, what is our final line of defense? Washington State has a so-called sexual predator law permitting indefinite confinement of sex offenders deemed to be dangerous if released. The law's critics argue that psychiatry has been a woefully inadequate forecaster. Others cite the constitutional problems of imprisonment based on prospective conduct. Recently there has been much discussion of voluntary castration. Such a "remedy" ignores reality. Sexual violence is not sex gone too far, it is violence with sex as its instrument. Rage, sadism and a desire to control or debase others are the driving forces. Castration can be reversed chemically with black-market hormones, and sex murders have been committed by physically castrated rapists. People have been raped by blunt objects. And how do you castrate female offenders? Our response to sexual predators must balance the extent and intensity of the possible behavior with the probability of its occurrence. An ex-prisoner likely to expose himself on a crowded subway may be a risk we are willing to assume. A prisoner with even a moderate probability of sexual torture and murder is not. Such violence is like a rock dropped into a calm pool—the concentric circles spread even after the rock has sunk. More and more victims will be affected. When it comes to sexual violence, the sum of our social and psychiatric knowledge adds up to this: Behavior is the truth. Chronic sexual predators have crossed an osmotic membrane. They can't step back to the other side—our side. And they don't want to. If we don't kill or release them, we have but one choice: Call them monsters and isolate them. When it comes to the sexual sadist, psychiatric diagnoses won't protect us. Appeasement endangers us. Rehabilitation is a joke. I've spoken to many predators over the years. They always exhibit amazement that we do not hunt them. And that when we capture them, we eventually let them go. Our attitude is a deliberate interference with Darwinism—an endangerment of our species. A proper experiment produces answers. Experiments with sexual sadists have produced only victims. Washington State's sexual predator law will surely be challenged in the courts and it may take years before constitutional and criminological criteria are established to incarcerate a criminal beyond his or her sentence. Perhaps no-parole life sentences for certain sex crimes would be a more straightforward answer. In any event, such laws offer our only hope against an epidemic of sexual violence that threatens to pollute our society beyond the possibility of its own rehabilitation. |
Posted by CPSREP on Mar. 16 2006,12:57 am
Ok REALcps... first of all if you read the post Ron mentioned himself that he was investigated so you saying there is no record of it is obviously untrue... I have since dropped the subject only wishing to do what I felt was right... I am no longer a CPS representative... but I do still work in a similar field... I AM, HAVE BEEN, and WILL CONTINUE to do what I can in Mower County.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 16 2006,1:57 am
I have a question for CPSREP or REALcps, why are all these child molesters walking out of court with only a slap on the wrist (usually they get probation, if they even get charged at all).and WHY are these child molesters allowed to be around children?
Take a look at James Stehlik. How many times has he been convicted of molesting a child.
yet he was just charged again recently and is now on house arrest probably preying on more kids
Never been to prison, yet he has preyed on children multiple times?
Posted by TheTruth on Mar. 16 2006,10:59 am
I know of alot more people then James Stelhik that walked away from a child molesting charge with just a slap on the wrist! Explain that.
Posted by The Game on Mar. 16 2006,1:12 pm
Cuz its easier for her to take cheap shots over 3rd party accusations that were unfounded and without merit. I have my doubts about the poster, however its all water under the bridge for me. I will continue to fight and lobby for a better community and the rights of the kids to have a secure, safe and happy childhood.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 16 2006,4:40 pm
petitions are all over town in Austin, MN.Is Austin next?
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 16 2006,6:37 pm
That's pretty much what the NY Times article was saying. These laws and local ordinances are having a domino effect and they are pushing offenders into the rural areas. And to be fair Dave Mullenbach shouldn't be the representative for the County with this group. He has the fewest number of rural constituents, so he certainly isn't going to be looking out for places like Glenville, Clarks Grove, and Geneva.I actually live next to Belleview park, so when this ordinance passes I'll know there won't be a sex offender living within a half mile of my daughters. But the more I learn about this the more I think this is a mistake, and I'm glad I don't live in a rural area, because that's where they're all going to be forced to live.
Posted by The Game on Mar. 16 2006,7:05 pm
One of the things to remember is that it does not have to be so wide and restrictive. If you took your property where a school, park, day care, or pool is at the end of that property measure out a 500 ft buffer, your maybe looking at a block radius maybe block in a half. That way those that wish to live here can still find housing and try to get their lives back on track. Liberal I see exactly where your coming from. and I do agree in some ways. I dont want other communities toi have to deal with a sudden in flux of offenders or have the offenders NOT register. I guess we will see what the committee comes up with though.
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 16 2006,7:45 pm
| Quote (The Game @ Mar. 14 2006,2:50pm) |
| Those convicted of felony crimes lost a few constitutional rights when they stripped the innocence from their victims. Like was sung in Baretta... "Don't do the crime if you cant do the time (don't do it... don't do it)" |
They already have "done the time", and are on probation. If everytime an offender moves, and the new neighbors decide to change the law to make them move again, pretty soon they'll just decide to go underground. Look at what's happening in Iowa, in everyway possible, the desired intent of the law has backfired. Soon, the ripple effect will cause more metro areas to enact the same laws all over the midwest. The effect of this will be the same as in Iowa. More offenders not reporting their address, and more of them moving to rural areas.
Atleast living in urban areas there's more people watching kids play, and better security. How often do people in rural areas lock their doors versus urban areas? How often do you see kids playing out in the country with much less supervision than in urban areas?
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Mar. 16 2006,7:59 pm
Pretty straight forward logic.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 16 2006,8:43 pm
I agree that a 2,000 ft. law like the one in IA would not work out that well. But I very strongly believe that a child molester should not be living right next to a school, daycare or park.
and a child molester should not be living directly across the street from a school, daycare or park.
Child Molesters prey on children. If they do NOT have to look at children all day maybe they won't have the urge to sexually assault a child and scar them emotionally for life?
Child Molesters do what they call "grooming". I am not saying someone that lives three blocks away from a park can't start grooming a child, but a child molester living right next to a park or school has alot better chance of grooming a child.
If you get a DWI, you are not allowed to go to a bar.
If you molested a child, you can live right next to a school.
If you get too many speeding tickets you are not allowed to drive a car.
If you molested children, you can live next to a school.
If you are a convicted felon, you may not possess a firearm.
If you are a convicted child molester, you can live next to a school.
Schools have drug free zones.
CHILD MOLESTERS HURT CHILDREN, SO KEEP THEM AWAY FROM CHILDREN!
Posted by Wareagle11B on Mar. 16 2006,8:59 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Mar. 16 2006,8:43pm) |
| Child Molesters do what they call "grooming". I am not saying someone that lives three blocks away from a park can't start grooming a child, but a child molester living right next to a park or school has alot better chance of grooming a child. |
Pre do you remember the story the ALPD Detective used at the public meeting at the High School. A young man (14 or 15) was "groomed" by an older sexual predator (late 40's I believe) while he delivered newspapers. This predator didn't live near any of these places mentioned in the petition. He happened to be on this kids paper route and saw a disillusioned young man he could take advantage of. So yes these predators can and will strike anywhere at anytime.
Is a law restricting where they live going to help? In the short term it maybe will but in the long term it is not the fix. We all know this and what needs to be pushed through is community notification and where we can get this information. I was concerned about this and said as much with my last post. We need to make sure that ALL sexual predators are on a statewide database and that there are no more unclassified offenders. EVERYONE who goes before a judge for a sexually based crime against children should be classified, at minimum, as a 1. I am not talking about 2 teeny boppers making out in the backseat here either. I am talking about real and true sexual crimes against children.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 16 2006,9:12 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Mar. 16 2006,8:59pm) |
| We need to make sure that ALL sexual predators are on a statewide database and that there are no more unclassified offenders. EVERYONE who goes before a judge for a sexually based crime against children should be classified, at minimum, as a 1. I am not talking about 2 teeny boppers making out in the backseat here either. I am talking about real and true sexual crimes against children. |
< FYI: its in the house already, I hope it passes. >
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 16 2006,9:22 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Mar. 16 2006,8:59pm) |
| Pre do you remember the story the ALPD Detective used at the public meeting at the High School. |
War, do you remember the question I asked at the meeting at the High School?
I asked if a man molested an 8 year old boy, would he automatically be classified as a level 3 sex offender so the community would know of his danger when he was released?
The answer was no, he could be classified as a level 1, level 2, or a level 3.
Alot of people think a level 1 is somebody that just took a leak in the alley, but that is not how it works.
Because we don't know who the child molesters are or where they live (better community notification), we should atleast know child molesters are not living right next to the schools.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 16 2006,9:37 pm
These quotes are from the:Center for Sex Offender Management
A project of the Office of Justice Programs
U.S. Department of Justice
"It is crucial to keep in mind, however, that there are no absolutes or "magic bullets" in the process of identifying these risk factors. Rather, this process is an exercise in isolating factors that tend to be associated with specific behaviors. While this association reflects a likelihood, it does not indicate that all individuals who possess certain characteristics will behave in a certain manner. Some sex offenders will inevitably commit subsequent sex offenses, in spite of our best efforts to identify risk factors and institute management and treatment processes aimed at minimizing these conditions. Likewise, not all sex offenders who have reoffense risk characteristics will recidivate."
"Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years)."
Posted by repdan on Mar. 16 2006,11:07 pm
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/312944.html< http://www.startribune.com/462/story/313014.html >
Minneapolis City Council Member Don Samuels and St. Paul City Council President Kathy Lantry are leading the movement in their cities. Both say the Taylors Falls ordinance gives them the impetus to move forward.
"For me, it's easier to guarantee the outcome," said Lantry, who has unsuccessfully explored such ordinances in the past.
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 17 2006,12:02 am
Preemptiveprevention - I disagree with your comparisons. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that it's part of probation that sex offenders aren't allowed to be with minors.| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Mar. 16 2006,8:43pm) |
| If you get a DWI, you are not allowed to go to a bar. If you molested a child, you can live right next to a school. |
I know that those of you who are for this petition are doing so out of good intentions, but I think even though it sounds good, it will have negative results. Let's face it, no community is going to be eagar to welcome sex offenders, but the more we restrict residency, the more we're forcing them to go underground. The last thing we need is the rates of sex offenders who stop reporting their location to skyrocket, in which case we can't restrict anything, cause the already overburdoned Department of Corrections won't know where to look for them, or who to notify.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 17 2006,12:30 am
| Quote (irisheyes @ Mar. 17 2006,12:02am) | ||
Preemptiveprevention - I disagree with your comparisons. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that it's part of probation that sex offenders aren't allowed to be with minors.
I know that those of you who are for this petition are doing so out of good intentions, but I think even though it sounds good, it will have negative results. Let's face it, no community is going to be eagar to welcome sex offenders, but the more we restrict residency, the more we're forcing them to go underground. The last thing we need is the rates of sex offenders who stop reporting their location to skyrocket, in which case we can't restrict anything, cause the already overburdoned Department of Corrections won't know where to look for them, or who to notify. |
1,400 Predatory Offenders currently underground in Minnesota. (as in they haven't registered with the police)
I think the total for Albert Lea is only 6 underground.
Alot of the city's that do have an ordinance state that if you own the house you don't have to move.
all of the Police Departments I have contacted that have this type of ordinance in their city are very happy with it.
Until the State of Minnesota has BETTER COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION and lets communities know who the child molesters are and where they live, Parents and Grandparents should atleast be able to know the child molesters are NOT living right next door to the schools, daycares, and parks.
I am not saying make them live 2,000 feet from a school (and push a majority of them underground).
I am saying don't let them live right next door to the schools, daycares, and parks.
CHILD MOLESTERS HURT CHILDREN.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 17 2006,12:37 am
and before I forget, Happy St. Patricks Day!
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 17 2006,12:46 am
If anybody knows anybody in Austin, MNsomebody will be in a meeting room over at the Austin Public Library collecting signatures on a "Better Safe Then Sorry" petition from 1:00pm to 5:00pm on Friday March 17th.
Spread the word to anybody interested in the sex offender issue!
Posted by Wareagle11B on Mar. 17 2006,8:13 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Mar. 17 2006,12:30am) |
| all of the Police Departments I have contacted that have this type of ordinance in their city are very happy with it. Until the State of Minnesota has BETTER COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION and lets communities know who the child molesters are and where they live, Parents and Grandparents should atleast be able to know the child molesters are NOT living right next door to the schools, daycares, and parks. I am not saying make them live 2,000 feet from a school (and push a majority of them underground). I am saying don't let them live right next door to the schools, daycares, and parks. CHILD MOLESTERS HURT CHILDREN. |
Pre I've said it before that an ordinance is a good idea. So by keeping them away from schools, daycares, parks and pools we open the doors for them to live elsewhere. I personally don't want them anywhere near these facilities but I d@mn sure don't want one right next door to my house either. That is a possibility as well.
Law enforcement may be happy with it for now but it seems to me that some Iowa L.E. people are rethinking their state law and the consequences that are now becoming apparent.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 17 2006,11:11 am
I am going to repeat myself again, I agree with some people and I do NOT think the Iowa 2,000 foot law would work. But I do NOT want a child molester living right next door to schools, parks, and daycares.
Some people are concerned with sex offenders going underground. With the current system we have sex offenders underground already. About 50 in Albert Lea, but we only know about 6 of them? Doesn't that put 44 sex offenders underground here in Albert Lea?
I agree with War, I don't want one next door to me either, but with the current system in Minnesota I won't know if I have a sex offender living next door to me. I atleast want to know sex offenders are NOT living right next door to the schools.
CHILD MOLESTERS HURT CHILDREN, KEEP THEM AWAY FROM CHILDREN!
Posted by Beyonce_clone on Mar. 17 2006,4:42 pm
Watch channel 3 kimt at 5 tonite or channel 6 kaal at 6 tonite. They'll be talking about the petition in austin.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 17 2006,6:41 pm
Better Safe Then Sorry!
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 18 2006,7:48 am
This one is for wareagle and game, looks like someone in law enforcement feels the same way as us about Better Community Notification! | Quote |
| Enforcement of ordinance could become a problem By Josh Verges Austin Daily Herald Tough sex offender laws are popular politically, but enforcing Theodore Paulson's ordinance could be a burden. Sheriff Terese Amazi said the county has 74 convicted sex offenders, 51 in Austin. Only one is a Level 2 sex offenders, calculated to have a 4 percent likelihood of re-offense. Offenders are required to keep law enforcement updated on their places of residence, employment and automobiles, but keeping tabs on them is difficult. Outside of follow-ups to citizen phone calls and rare random compliance checks, local law enforcement agents check registration one of two ways: following officer contacts with offenders for traffic violations and other crimes, and through the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which sends address verification letters by mail to offenders, and contacts local authorities if they are not returned. “It makes sense. They shouldn't be living by schools if their victims have been children,” Amazi said. “ ... My concern is it would be taxing on law enforcement.” The penalty too may not be as severe as supporters of the ordinance would like. The Iowa law punishes its residence proximity law as an aggravated misdemeanor, which means up to two years in prison. Minnesota statute for failure to register as a predatory offender is a felony punishable up to five years in prison, but a city ordinance can be prosecuted as only a misdemeanor-level offense, punishable up to 90 days in jail. Albert Lea City Attorney Steve Schwab said Taylors Falls is the only city in the state with a proximity ordinance for sex offenders. It keeps the most dangerous (Level III) offenders, and those whose victims were under 16, from living within 2,000 feet of a school or public park, and from participating in kid-friendly holidays. If the park-heavy Albert Lea used the same 2,000-foot standard, Schwab said the ordinance could make the entire city off limits, which law would not allow. Austin's layout would present similar concerns. More information may be the answer To Schafer, the answer to protecting the community is beyond the power of a city council. Iowa maintains a public database with names, crimes and addresses of every sex offender, from serial rapists to teenagers who had sex with underage girlfriends. In Minnesota, the public can see criminal files county by county, but Schafer must use a user name and password to search for broad arrest records. If the public had easier access to where sex offenders lived and what they have done, it would help parents make better decisions for their kids, he said. “If most parents knew what we know, they would have an edge,” Schafer said, noting that the databases already exist so making them more accessible wouldn't take much work. The clamor for broader community notification has grown in Minnesota, in part due to high-profile cases. Minnesota sex offenders who serve prison time are categorized as risk level I, II or III upon release; Level IIIs are the most dangerous, and studies have shown they re-offend 9 percent of the time. For Level I sex offenders, statute allows law enforcement to disclose information about the offender to witnesses and victims and those with whom the offender will be living. Level II notification includes schools, child care centers, and other organizations that serve potential victims of the offender. For Level III offenders, law enforcement must do the same as they do for Levels I and II, plus notify other community members the offender is likely to encounter, unless it's believed the disclosure will identify the victim or otherwise compromise public safety. In the past six years, there have been two community-wide meetings in Austin, where a Level III offender was changing his residence. Chief Philipp said he's always concerned that those meetings draw attention to just one man when a friend or relative is far more likely to abuse someone. For Paulson, the more information that's out there, the better. Responding to the argument that safe zones create a false sense of security, he said, “We won't have any sense of security if we don't know where they're living.” |
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 18 2006,7:52 am
< "Austin Police Chief Paul Philipp said he doesn't plan to oppose the ordinance" >
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 18 2006,9:36 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Mar. 17 2006,6:41pm) |
| Better Safe Then Sorry! |
I think the idiom is actually "Better Safe Than Sorry".
Posted by TheTruth on Mar. 18 2006,4:03 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Mar. 18 2006,9:36am) | ||
I think the idiom is actually "Better Safe Than Sorry". |
"Better Safe Than Sorry"
or
"Better Safe Than Sorry"
Either way it sounds good and makes sense.
But I suggested Pre advocate for something else with the catchphrase "Kill 'em All"
atleast I tried?
Posted by Wareagle11B on Mar. 18 2006,4:04 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Mar. 18 2006,9:36am) | ||
I think the idiom is actually "Better Safe Than Sorry". |
Next time you should just email him some White Out Liberal!
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 18 2006,5:06 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Mar. 18 2006,4:04pm) | ||||
Next time you should just email him some White Out Liberal! |
3 english classes in the past year, and I still couldn't use the word "than" properly. Now that I think about it, I didn't use that word properly in an essay I wrote for one of my classes.
Hey wareagle, you should give that picture of the guy picking his nose to my teacher.
On the essay I wrote my teacher only put a red check where I used the word "then" instead of "than". If the teacher would have put the picture you posted on my paper, I would probably would not have made the same mistake again!
What college did you graduate from Wareagle?
Posted by Wareagle11B on Mar. 19 2006,8:05 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Mar. 18 2006,5:06pm) |
| What college did you graduate from Wareagle? |
LOL Pre. The Game knows what college I attended by the name I use here.
Wareagle is the battle cry for Auburn University in Auburn Alabama the very hated rival to the University of Alabama aka the Crimson Tide. I attended the Montgomery campus but life got in the way when my daughter was born and I had to switch jobs to earn more money and dropped out. I am planning on attending Hamilton in MC in the spring or fall. Don't worry Pre I am far from perfect where the use of THEN and THAN is concerned and I am sure we are not the only ones.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 19 2006,9:28 am
These numbers are from newspaper articles published this month so they are current!Minnesota has 17,000 with 1,400 noncompliant.
Iowa has 6,000 with 400 noncompliant.
Minnesota currently has about a 92% compliance rate.
Iowa currently has about a 93% compliance rate.
(and they say Iowa is having a problem with sex offenders going underground?)
Minnesota has no resident restrictions.
Iowa has resident restrictions.
and to quote part of an article Liberal posted a while back:
| Quote |
| In Arkansas, a 2001 study found that sexual offenders of children often lived near schools, day care centers and parks. Those results suggested, said Jeffrey T. Walker, a professor from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock who was a co-author of the research, that residency restrictions could be a reasonable deterrent. |
I am not pushing for a 2,000 ft. law like Iowa,
but how about maybe a 500 ft. law?
Just enough distance so a child molester is not living right next to a school.
With that said, I would much rather have Better Community Notification, but until
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 20 2006,12:06 am
| Quote |
Based on the examination of level three re-offenders, there were no examples that residential proximity to a park or school was a contributing factor in any of the sexual reoffenses noted above. Enhanced safety due to proximity restrictions may be a comfort factor for the general public, but it does not have any basis in fact. The two level three offenders described above whose re-offenses took place near parks both drove from their residences to park areas that were several miles away. Because neither was under supervision, there were no supervision conditions that would prohibit them from driving near parks. Based on these cases, it appears that a sex offender attracted to such locations for purposes of committing a crime is more likely to travel to another neighborhood in order to act in secret rather than in a neighborhood where his or her picture is well known. 4. Efforts to mitigate the concentration of the offenders, especially with regard to proximity to schools.According to Minnesota Statute §244.052, subdivision 4a, “the agency responsible for the offender’s supervision shall take into consideration the proximity of the offender’s residence to that of other level three offenders and proximity to schools and, to the greatest extent feasible, shall mitigate the concentration of level three offenders and concentration of level three offenders near schools.” Because of limited placement options, rarely does a supervising agency have a choice between two separate placements for an offender that would allow mitigation of the concentration of level three offenders near schools or other level three of-fenders to be taken into consideration. Mitigation of concentration of and proximity to schools can be a factor if two essentially equal placement options are available. If on an in-dividual basis supervision restrictions preclude location near schools, then that is taken into account as a high priority factor. So far, there has not been one example of a level three of-fender re-offending at a nearby school. 5. Likely effects of a policy requiring that offenders live a certain distance from schools.Residential choices are already limited under current statutes that do not prohibit level three offenders from living near schools. Additional restrictions would severely affect already meager placement choices. Minneapolis and St. Paul have a well-disbursed system of neighborhood schools that would create a restriction on the majority of residential property in both cities. (See Appendices C-1 and C-2 for a map of Minneapolis that indicates areas in which residence of level three offenders would be prohibited if a 1,500-foot restriction were to become law.) Having such restrictions in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul would likely force level three offenders to move to more rural areas that would not contain nearby schools and parks but would pose other problems, such as a high concentration of offenders with no ties to the community; isolation; lack of work, education, and treatment options; and an increase in the distance traveled by agents who supervise offenders. Again, no evidence points to any effect on offense rates of school proximity residential restrictions. < Minnesota Department of Corrections Level three sex offenders residential placement issues. (2003) > |
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 20 2006,1:12 am
When a study is done by the authority that is suppose to rehabilitate a sex offender I question the findings. They could be right, but what if they are wrong?
Even if they were right 99 out 100 times, one child would still have to suffer.
| Quote |
| Offender’s place of residence may not be in close proximity to parks, playgrounds, public pools, or other locations frequented by children < Special Needs Offenders Bulletin, A Publication of the Federal Judicial Center > |
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 20 2006,12:11 pm
anybody heard anything about the committee?
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 20 2006,12:56 pm
I haven't heard anything yet, but I suspect you'll see several local politicians/citizens that will be climbing over each other to get on the committee, just so that they can tell people that they helped run the sex offenders out of town while they're campaigning this fall.
Posted by repdan on Mar. 20 2006,9:08 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Mar. 19 2006,9:28am) | ||
| These numbers are from newspaper articles published this month so they are current! Minnesota has 17,000 with 1,400 noncompliant. Iowa has 6,000 with 400 noncompliant. Minnesota currently has about a 92% compliance rate. Iowa currently has about a 93% compliance rate. (and they say Iowa is having a problem with sex offenders going underground?) Minnesota has no resident restrictions. Iowa has resident restrictions. and to quote part of an article Liberal posted a while back:
I am not pushing for a 2,000 ft. law like Iowa, but how about maybe a 500 ft. law? Just enough distance so a child molester is not living right next to a school. With that said, I would much rather have Better Community Notification, but until |
What is your source on the Iowa %? My understanding from DOC is that Iowa does not have a good number on their list. The Minnesota number would include more people than are tracked in Iowa if I understand their list right.
When I talked to the person in Des Moines who does the their intent listing, she said their number of noncompliants doubled within a year a passing the 2000 foot rule
Posted by repdan on Mar. 20 2006,9:15 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Mar. 20 2006,12:56pm) |
| I haven't heard anything yet, but I suspect you'll see several local politicians/citizens that will be climbing over each other to get on the committee, just so that they can tell people that they helped run the sex offenders out of town while they're campaigning this fall. |
Ya think?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 20 2006,9:52 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Mar. 20 2006,9:08pm) | ||||
What is your source on the Iowa %? My understanding from DOC is that Iowa does not have a good number on their list. The Minnesota number would include more people than are tracked in Iowa if I understand their list right. When I talked to the person in Des Moines who does the their intent listing, she said their number of noncompliants doubled within a year a passing the 2000 foot rule |
I thought you researched already?
The statistics I quoted are correct,
I did my research.
and I did the math.
Minnesota, 17,000 with 1,400 noncompliant equals 91.8% compliance rate.
Iowa, 6,000 with 400 noncompliant equals 93.4% compliance rate.
How come you haven't replied to any of my e-mails?
Posted by repdan on Mar. 20 2006,11:03 pm
I have been getting about 70 a day, I'm a bit behind and I like to my own and not farm them out to staff.Are you sure you are comparing apples to apples? My understanding is their not sure where they are in complaince. That's why I asked for your source.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 20 2006,11:31 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Mar. 20 2006,11:03pm) |
| I have been getting about 70 a day, I'm a bit behind and I like to my own and not farm them out to staff. |
Thank you for doing your own, I have e-mailed quite a few politicians, and a little over half of them just reply with a generic e-mail.
Could you add yourself as a coauthor to HF2700, and add text that requires any sex offender whose victim was under the age of 13 be listed to the public the same as a level 3?
or atleast ask the House authors of HF2700 to consider adding that to the bill?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 20 2006,11:55 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Mar. 20 2006,11:03pm) |
| Are you sure you are comparing apples to apples? My understanding is their not sure where they are in complaince. That's why I asked for your source. |
I am sorry, I stand corrected, in Iowa the The Department of Public Safety has listed 5 percent, or 344 sex offenders, as "whereabouts unconfirmed."
I was off by 1.6%.
Iowa has a 95% compliance rate.
Minnesota has a 91.8% compliance rate.
5% of sex offenders are missing in Iowa, and people are complaining that too many sex offenders went "undergroud" in Iowa?
Minnesota is missing 8.2%, and all we here from the MN DOC is how great are system is?
It sounds like someone else isn't comparing apples to apples?
Posted by repdan on Mar. 21 2006,10:17 am
Which is why I asked you for the source, DOC tells me Iowa does not have a good number, trying to track it down. The total numbers on the list between the 2 states seems off which made me ask the apples to apples question.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 21 2006,12:38 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Mar. 21 2006,10:17am) |
| Which is why I asked you for the source, |
Department of Public Safety
| Quote (repdan @ Mar. 21 2006,10:17am) |
DOC tells me Iowa does not have a good number, trying to track it down. |
Currently Iowa is doing a better job keeping track of them compared to Minnesota. I wonder what the MN DOC says about Minnesota since the compliance rates are worse in Minnesota?
Did the DOC tell you Minnesota has a worse compliance rate, or did the DOC say what a good job they are doing here in Minnesota keeping track of these offenders?
Posted by repdan on Mar. 21 2006,12:40 pm
Sorry, I must not be asking this clearly. The DOC tells me that Iowa does not really know what the % is, that sound odd to me based on your post, which is why I asked for your source.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 21 2006,5:35 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Mar. 21 2006,12:40pm) |
| Sorry, I must not be asking this clearly. The DOC tells me that Iowa does not really know what the % is, that sound odd to me based on your post, which is why I asked for your source. |
Iowa Department of Public Safety
The Department of Public Safety has listed 5 percent, or 344 sex offenders, as "whereabouts unconfirmed."
(and Minnesota is at 8.2%)
1,400 offenders are not compliant in Minnesota!
Maybe if child molesters were listed on a website, it would be harder for them to hide?
and harder for them to prey on more children?
Posted by TheTruth on Mar. 21 2006,7:11 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ Mar. 21 2006,5:35pm) |
| The Department of Public Safety has listed 5 percent, or 344 sex offenders, as "whereabouts unconfirmed." (and Minnesota is at 8.2%) 1,400 offenders are not compliant in Minnesota! |
How many in Albert Lea?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 21 2006,11:21 pm
Has anybody ever heard of the lawsuit filed on behalf of victims of Joseph Duncan?Is the state of Minnesota getting sued for letting him prey on more children,
or just the Minnesota Judge that let him out on bail so he could prey on more children, after he was charged for molesting children at a park?
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 22 2006,9:49 am
If Iowa's rate of non compliant offenders has nearly doubled since the law went into effect, wouldn't you think that there would be a similar change in Minnesota if we enacted a zoning law like Iowa has?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 22 2006,2:25 pm
< One suspect, Terry Baier, used to be a janitor in the Owatonna school district >
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 22 2006,9:32 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Mar. 22 2006,9:49am) |
| If Iowa's rate of non compliant offenders has nearly doubled since the law went into effect, wouldn't you think that there would be a similar change in Minnesota if we enacted a zoning law like Iowa has? |
I would much rather know who the child molesters are, and where they live so I can take extra precautions for my children near them.
Since I don't know who the child molesters are, and where they live, I want to atleast know the child molesters are not living right next door to the schools, daycares, and parks.
I do not want a 2,000 ft. law like Iowa, I just want to know they are NOT right next door to schools, daycares, and parks.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 25 2006,8:24 pm
Dan Dorman in the Albert Lea Tribune| Quote |
| Dorman said he was concerned an expanded registry would be expensive to keep up and may not include accurate information. |
Det. Schafer in Austin Daily Herald
| Quote |
| “If most parents knew what we know, they would have an edge,” Schafer said, noting that the databases already exist so making them more accessible wouldn't take much work. |
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 25 2006,8:50 pm
Joe Marks wrote a really good article about the sex offender issue.< http://www.albertleatribune.com/articles/2006/03/26/news/news2.txt >
Posted by cheeba on Mar. 26 2006,12:55 am
Yes it was a very good article. I am so happy this has all gotten going. I have been talking to parents and concerned citizens at work and from my son's school. They are very pleased to see this move forward. And no we arn't kicking them out of town but at least we are rounding them into an area we will all stay out of. I sure hope more and more communities take this kind of action.
Offenders or future offenders will think twice before unzipping their pants. or do all them other little nasty things.
I think all of you should take a moment pat yourselves on the back knowing you really stepped up and made a difference. Not only in helping put peoples mind at ease but saving a child life in the future because they probably won't move here now.
Posted by Wolfie on Mar. 26 2006,1:34 am
You know if we just killed people that break the laws of the land like they do in China, we wouldnt have to worry about stuff like this. We need to put teeth back in the laws we have instead of making more. That said I am glad that they are going to work on a ordinance. I live in the world of reality and know perfectly well that laws will never have teeth as long as lame a$$ lawyers are allowed to be politicians.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Mar. 26 2006,1:01 pm
| Quote (cheeba @ Mar. 26 2006,12:55am) |
| I think all of you should take a moment pat yourselves on the back knowing you really stepped up and made a difference. Not only in helping put peoples mind at ease but saving a child life in the future because they probably won't move here now. |
I agree with you Cheeba but YOU deserve it as much as anyone. You were the person who first posted the Family Watchdog link. I just took the ball and ran with it. Ted and Ron took it even further but it would never have started if you hadn't posted the link. Thank You.
Posted by cheeba on Mar. 26 2006,1:29 pm
Posted by sports lover on Mar. 27 2006,4:57 am
I have a criminal justice background and during the middle 1970's a big push in the prison system was to rehabilitate, not punish. The one segment of that population that were not successfully rehabilitated were sexual predators/offenders. The late '70's saw the closing of large mental hospital facilities around this State and infact the U.S. Community based integration became the standard. Again, because treatment modalities were almost universally unsuccessful in dealing with sex offenders then and now, it becomes incumbant upon our leaders to understand that safety of the general populace is primary. Sexual predators do not change. We need to be protected from these individuals. Chemical castration is controversial and mildly effective and only mildly effective if responsibly monitored. We have been told that the Freeborn County Probation Office is so overworked that they are only able to perform housekeeping kind of tasks. I believe that this is the norm throughout the US because of the proliferation of drug crimes and convictions. I have kept abreast of changes over the past 30 years. Little if anything has changed except the numbers of the offenders. I have always advocated to assist, rehab, counsel, help others within the Justice System. I came from a very Liberal Criminal Justice background and the '70's were an exciting time in that arena. However, over the past 30 years realism has caused a pragmatism that I could not have possibly envisioned back then. St. Peter houses dangerous sexual predators and I believe the only real solution is to lock these individuals up and forever.
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 27 2006,10:16 am
| Quote (sports lover @ Mar. 27 2006,4:57am) |
| I have a criminal justice background and during the middle 1970's a big push in the prison system was to rehabilitate, not punish. The one segment of that population that were not successfully rehabilitated were sexual predators/offenders. Sexual predators do not change. We need to be protected from these individuals. Chemical castration is controversial and mildly effective and only mildly effective if responsibly monitored. |
| Quote |
| Recidivism * Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime. * The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers. * Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide. * Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders. * Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders. |
I think it's important to keep things in perspective, so I copied these statistics from the Department of Justice. They seem to contradict your post. This information is from 2003, using data on the rearrest, reconviction, and reimprisonment of 9,691 male sex offenders, including 4,295 child molesters, who were tracked for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 States in 1994.
< Bureau of Justice Statistics - Recidivism >
I understand that each occurrence of this happening is a terrible thing. But I think it's important to know the facts before we make decisions concerning this issue.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 27 2006,12:17 pm
| Quote (irisheyes @ Mar. 27 2006,10:16am) |
| I think it's important to keep things in perspective, so I copied these statistics from the Department of Justice. They seem to contradict your post. This information is from 2003, using data on the rearrest, reconviction, and reimprisonment of 9,691 male sex offenders, including 4,295 child molesters, who were tracked for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 States in 1994. |
The recidivism rates are low when you track a child molester over 3 years, but track a child molester for 25 years and over half of the child molesters will reoffend.
Since you brought up the Department of Justice, here is some information I found from the:
Center for Sex Offender Management
A project of the Office of Justice Programs
U.S. Department of Justice
"Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years)."
< http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html >
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 27 2006,9:22 pm
Touche', good info.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 28 2006,10:26 am
From today's Tribune.| Quote |
The committee will also include Councilor George Marin, a pastor at Grace Christian Church - who will represent the council and the faith community - City Attorney Steve Schwab, Freeborn County Sheriff Mark Harig, Jill Barickman of probation and court services, Crime Victim's Crisis Center Supervisor Rose Olmsted, community member Theodore Paulson, Human Rights Commission member Jim Stoen and a school district representative yet to be named. < http://www.albertleatribune.com/articles/2006/03/28/news/news4.txt > |
Personally, I'd prefer someone from the faith based community/city council that believes in the Christian virtues of justice, temperance and tolerance. Not one that was the first to go for Mayor Eaton's throat, the one to speak out in favor of violating the sex offenders civil rights, and the one that recently bashed Dan Sparks in the Tribune because Dan Sparks didn't show up for their hate-fest last week.
Posted by Flying Cucumber on Mar. 28 2006,7:54 pm
I'm curious. According to the tribune there were to be 11 on the committee and they listed 9 with another one to be unnamed. Who is the missing one on the committee?
Posted by FlyguyAL on Mar. 28 2006,9:45 pm
| Quote |
| Police Chief Dwaine Winkels and detective Frank Kohl will both serve on the committee. |
Posted by Flying Cucumber on Mar. 28 2006,9:52 pm
Thanks, I miscounted.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 29 2006,11:02 am
I just wanted to update anyone interested.I spoke with the Iowa Sex Offender Registry today and the Minnesota BCA yesterday.
According to the Iowa Sex Offender Registry, Iowa has a 95.3% compliance rate.
According to the Minnesota BCA, Minnesota has a 90% compliance rate.
Iowa has 284 noncompliant sex offenders.
Minnesota has over 1,300 that are noncompliant.
What is going on here?
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 29 2006,3:54 pm
| Quote |
Iowa has 284 noncompliant sex offenders. Minnesota has over 1,300 that are noncompliant. |
Will a sex offender ordinance change the number of noncompliant offenders in a positive way, or will it cause that number to increase like it did in Iowa?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 29 2006,6:58 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Mar. 29 2006,3:54pm) | ||
Will a sex offender ordinance change the number of noncompliant offenders in a positive way, or will it cause that number to increase like it did in Iowa? |
< Minnesota Statute >
243.166 Registration of predatory offenders.
Subd. 5. Criminal penalty. (a) A person required to
register under this section who knowingly violates any of its
provisions or intentionally provides false information to a
corrections agent, law enforcement authority, or the bureau is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
< Iowa Statute >
Penalties for Failure of Registrant to Comply:
A willful failure to register as required by the Code of Iowa, Chapter 692A.7 is an aggravated misdemeanor (not to exceed 2 years imprisonment) for the first offense and a Class “D” felony (not to exceed 5 years imprisonment) for a second or subsequent offense.
After looking at these statutes I have to ask myself why Iowa is doing a better job of keeping track of their offenders if the penalties are worse in Minnesota for failure to register?
On the bright side if the sex offenders do NOT register, when they are caught they are facing 5 years in prison, so they will be off the streets (and away from children) for a couple of years atleast.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Mar. 29 2006,10:24 pm
Gubernatorial Candidate Sue Jeffers Asked| Quote |
| George, Where are the "real people" on that task force? While it is nice to have the so called experts involved, the voice of the people is the one that will make a true difference. Invite the media, they tend to make sure something is happening. Have you ever attended one of the types of meeting? You meet for hours and get nothing done except the politicians and officials can tell you how hard they are working on the issue. Demand more and you will get more. Sue |
Posted by TheTruth on Mar. 29 2006,11:02 pm
| Quote (GEOKARJO @ Mar. 29 2006,10:24pm) | ||
Gubernatorial Candidate Sue Jeffers Asked
|
If the media is invited, someone should send an invitation to Geraldo Riveria and Bill O'reilly.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 30 2006,10:22 am
| Quote |
Editorial: City picked a good group for committee Thursday, March 30, 2006 9:48 AM CST When the Albert Lea City Council first decided to form a committee that would draft a sex offender ordinance, there was concern that the city was rushing into a measure that could possibly do more to tie up police time than to fight crime. Now that the members of the committee to draft an ordinance have been named, it seems some of those fears have passed. Kudos to the City Council for naming a diverse group of people to the committee. We are particularly glad the committee has strong representation from the law enforcement sector. Albert Lea Police Chief Dwaine Winkels, detective Frank Kohl and Freeborn County Sheriff Mark Harig are on the committee. Who better to ask how to keep us safe than the guys on the front line? Some are concerned that an ordinance that is structured too drastically will do nothing but force the registered offenders into the rural areas and, more than likely, make it harder to track the offenders. A drastic ordinance could end up giving the city's registered offenders to the county. The problem will only shift. On the other hand, a registered sex offender - from any state - living right next door to a school or child care makes it hard for parents to sleep at night. It's a tough nut to crack no matter how you look at it. Both sides have solid arguments. With the broad representation, a happy medium can be reached. |
Posted by The Game on Mar. 30 2006,12:07 pm
May Soon Execute Repeat Child RapistsState Senate Gives Preliminary Approval To Bill
POSTED: 8:55 am EST March 29, 2006
UPDATED: 11:23 am EST March 29, 2006
COLUMBIA, S.C. -- The South Carolina Senate has given preliminary approval to a bill that authorizes the death penalty for twice-convicted child rapists.
The proposal approved Tuesday still needs a final reading before going on to the House.
It would authorize prosecutors to seek capital punishment for any sex offender convicted twice of raping children younger than 11.
The plan is part of a larger bill that would set minimum sentences for sex offenders and require lifetime electronic monitoring for some of them.
Opponents said the measure would be unconstitutional. But the U. S. Supreme Court declined to review a Louisiana law that allows the death penalty for people who rape children younger than 12. Currently, murder is the only crime in South Carolina eligible for the death penalty.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 1977 Georgia case involving an adult victim that sentencing someone to death for rape was unconstitutional.
State Sen. Jake Knotts, chief backer of the South Carolina bill, said criminals who rape children don't belong on earth.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 30 2006,12:22 pm
The problem I have with this issue is that I live next to a park and I've lived here for 14-15 years. The entire time I've lived here there has been a person that committed a sex crime within 300 feet of the park. For 14-15 years I've warned every neighbor that moves in about Chester (not his real name, it's just what I call him) and they sometimes don't believe me because they don't think it's possible for a sex offender to live that close to a park.
I actually had one neighbor bring me his criminal record from the public terminal at the court house within the last 6-8 months. The criminal record said exactly what I've been telling people for years, but it's hard to believe that he's not considered a sex offender. I believe the reason he isn't is because of a plea bargain where he served a short time in the county jail for a gross misdemeanor.
Now if we pass an ordinance, we'll have people believing that our parks are safe and that no sex offenders live near them, and that's only going to give people a false sense of security. And I'd rather if people explained to their kids that the world is a scarey place and they need to always keep an eye out for sex offenders. And never assume that any place is safe from sex offenders.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 30 2006,12:58 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Mar. 30 2006,12:22pm) |
| I actually had one neighbor bring me his criminal record from the public terminal at the court house within the last 6-8 months. The criminal record said exactly what I've been telling people for years, but it's hard to believe that he's not considered a sex offender. I believe the reason he isn't is because of a plea bargain where he served a short time in the county jail for a gross misdemeanor. |
I wish people could know how often that happens!
| Quote (Liberal @ Mar. 30 2006,12:22pm) |
Now if we pass an ordinance, we'll have people believing that our parks are safe and that no sex offenders live near them, and that's only going to give people a false sense of security. And I'd rather if people explained to their kids that the world is a scarey place and they need to always keep an eye out for sex offenders. And never assume that any place is safe from sex offenders. |
The ordinance will not make the parks 100% safe, but it will make them safer.
Doesn't a child molester that lives right next to a school or park have a much better chance of "grooming" children so the child molester can live out his sick fantasy's with the children?
I am not saying someone that lives a mile away from a school or park can't start "grooming" a child, but they will have more chances to "groom" a child if they are right next to where the children congregate.
Also if a child molester can't sit in their house and watch children playing at the park (or recess at school) wouldn't they be less likely to get in their car and go find a child to inflict pain and suffering on because they won't be feeling the appetite for a child's innocence if they aren't around children?
Keep the children out of sight, out of mind?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 30 2006,6:08 pm
I know this is in Rochester and not Albert Lea, but this is a good example of why the State of Minnesota needs to make some changes to the way they handle sex offenders and notify the community the sex offenders live in!go to the Minnesota Sex Offender website and search under 55901 zipcode
and you will see 1 sex offender in Rochester, MN.
< http://www.doc.state.mn.us/level3/Search.asp >
go to the Iowa Sex Offender website and search under city Rochester and
you will see 4 sex offenders in Rochester, MN.
< http://www.iowasexoffender.com/search.php >
go to the Wisconsin Sex Offender Website and search under 55901 zipcode
and you will see 3 sex offenders in Rochester, MN.
< http://offender.doc.state.wi.us/public/search/searchbylocation.jsp >
According to the Minnesota sex offender website Rochester only has 1 sex offender, but the the Iowa sex offender website says Rochester has 4 sex offenders, and the Wisconsin sex offender website says Rochester has 3 sex offenders. A total of 8 sex offenders, but you can only see one of them on the Minnesota site?
Why do residents of a city in Minnesota have to go to an out of state sex offender site to see
sex offenders in Rochester?
Better Community Notification!!
Posted by TheTruth on Mar. 30 2006,8:30 pm
| Quote (Gabe @ Mar. 30 2006,2:32pm) |
| March 9, 2001 Deputy guilty of touching teen boy Officer was D.A.R.E. teacher By Jennifer Hemmingsen Tribune staff writer A Freeborn County sheriff’s deputy and youth drug prevention teacher has been suspended after being convicted of inappropriately touching a juvenile. Freeborn County Sheriff’s Office deputy Corey Michael Farris, 26, Alden, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct Thursday, for inappropriately touching a juvenile staying in his home. Sometime in late November 2000, after an evening out drinking beer with his friends, Farris entered a room where the 17-year-old was sleeping and touched the victim over his underwear. Farris told investigators that he hugged the victim, sat up, then leaned back down to give him a second hug. Farris said his hand was under the sheets and that he incidentally touched his genitals. The victim told investigators he jumped up and began swearing at Farris and told him to get out of his room. Farris told investigators he did not know why he touched the victim, but that it was not intended as a sexual advance. Public court records were censored to eliminate references to the victim’s relationship with Farris. Disorderly conduct means that Farris engaged in offensive behavior that reasonably caused alarm and resentment in another. The prosecuting attorney could not be reached for comment, but a local attorney said criminal sexual conduct charges require proof of the defendant’s sexual intent or perception of a sexual threat by the victim. The charge was filed against Farris by the Minnesota Attorney General’s office less than two hours before Judge John Chesterman accepted the plea and sentenced him to 30 days in jail, stayed with one year supervised probation. Freeborn County Sheriff Don Nolander asked the MBCA to investigate when the allegation was reported to his office. “We wanted no bias,” Nolander said. “We wanted this to be done by unbiased professionals and handled in that fashion.” In a plea agreement, Farris’ attorney, Mark Anderson, and the Minnesota Attorney General’s office agreed to recommend the stayed sentence provided Farris discontinue activities bringing him in contact with adolescents – including school bus driving and teaching the DARE program. He can also have no contact with the victim, and must undergo a sexual predator evaluation and follow the evaluator’s recommendation. Farris taught the DARE program in the Alden-Conger and Glenville-Emmons school districts for about three years. He stopped teaching the program while on administrative leave during the investigation. The DARE program will continue through the end of the year, Nolander said. “We haven’t missed a beat with the DARE program,” he said. “Through an agreement between myself and the Albert Lea Police Department, it has continued to run”. As a result of the misdemeanor conviction, Farris was suspended from the sheriff’s department Thursday afternoon. He will return to work Monday but lose 40 hours compensatory time, said the County Administrator Gene Smith. The incident was not work related, but violated the sheriff’s code of conduct. “The basis of the decision is a violation of the county personnel rules – and regulations based upon a conviction which has impact on the employee’s ability to perform their job,” Smith said. Farris was declared fit for duty by an independent professional, Smith said. His return to work is conditional on his guarantee he release all information from the sex offender evaluation to the county. Farris has had no previous complaints filed against him since becoming a sheriff’s deputy in 1997. Any time a law-enforcement officer is involved in improper activity, the entire department suffers, Nolander said. In the 30 years he has been here, only one other deputy has been found guilty of breaking the law. |
I wanted to make sure everyone saw the Truth!
Was this originally posted by the County Administrator Gabrielsen? or maybe its a different Gabe?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Mar. 31 2006,5:20 pm
This topic has been viewed 20,000 times!
Have any other topics got this many views?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 01 2006,7:05 pm
| Quote |
| Sex offender ordinance: What do you have to say? Saturday, April 1, 2006 5:34 PM CST “I think it's all right. But if they've gone through treatment they should be given another chance.” - April Rygh “I think that's up to the community, but there should be a distance. If we don't take care of the children, who will?” - Mary Koziolek “I don't think they should be living by schools. It's too tempting.” - Joyce Metcalfe “It's a good idea. You don't push candy in front of a baby.” - Shirley Torsch “It's a good idea. You should know who's living around you.” - Bill Raatz “It's a good idea. There should be some accountability for what they've done.” - Barry Coughlin “Putting them next to a school is like putting a fox in charge of the chicken coop.” - Ted Gill “I think it's a good idea to give parents with young children some piece of mind.” - Mark Olson “All they would have to do is get in their car and drive. It would be better to put monitoring devices on them and let them live where they want.” - Philip Kortz “It's probably a good idea, but I don't know. It's a really hard issue.” - Dennis Honsey “I don't think it's right to make them move if they own a home.” - Nicole King “That's a good idea. It's good to be cautious.” - John Souryavong “I'm completely against letting them live there. A sex offender is a sex offender. What makes you think they won't do it again, when you have little ones you worry.” - Rachel Nelson “I think it's a good idea. It's really a temptation for them if they're still doing those things.” - Marilyn Loshman “I used to do day care for almost eight years and I have a little child. I wouldn't want it.” - Jen Dahlen “I think it's a good idea. Someone's got to watch out for them and keep them separated from the crowd.” - Norman Schmidt “They shouldn't even let them in the state.” - Jim Bronson “I think that's an excellent idea. We need to get rid of sex offenders one way or another. But if they live a few blocks away, they can still get there.” - Bev Indrelie “I agree with it. Being a citizen, you want to be aware.” - Jeremy Jensen “If it's someone who goes after kids, they shouldn't be there.” - Katie Radke “I think it's a good idea. I think it's less of a temptation for them. They already have a lot of places around here to live so it doesn't take away too many rights of theirs.” - Matt Stay “I think people should be told who sex offenders are for the safety of the children.” - Frances Swenson “You want to keep them away from kids. If they've already posed a problem, why give them an opportunity to fail again. It's the same if you're quitting smoking, you don't go where everyone's smoking.” - Aaron Bjorklund “I think they should all have to register.” - Dominic Hayes “That's actually a really good idea.” - Ashley Cole “I think a registered sex offender should be held in the cross-hairs of a shotgun.” - Robert Hoffman “It's a good idea to protect our children.” - Elaine Knopf “I don't think where they live is going to change their behavior.” - Dave Nolander “The ones from Iowa live in my vicinity, so I want it.” - Heidi Yost “I think when they're in that location, it would be tougher for them not to re-offend.” - Rhonda Cibert “I think it's a good idea for the protection of kids. It's kind of proven that once they do this, a lot of times they repeat. And we don't keep a good enough profile to know who's good and who's bad.” - Jim Gold “I think it's a good idea. I'd be pretty scared to live around a sex offender.” - Marissa Boone “That's a tough one. I guess it's a good idea to protect our children.” - Rachel Iverson “I don't think they should be where there'll be a lot of kids. They've been in trouble and the same habits might come back.” - Robert Suniga “It's definitely a good idea. I don't want them anywhere near my son, that's for sure.” - Jason Apland “It's a good idea. We need to keep children safe.” - Nathan Christenson “I understand what they've done is reprehensible, but they still do have some rights.” - Marianne Sahli “I hear police saying it wouldn't help, that they'll just drive. But I think if they're living close to a school or playground, in eyesight of kids playing, it's a temptation to them.” - Bob Steffl “I have a child and a sex offender is living down the street. They need to be put away.” - Jennie Wondra “I think it's a great idea, mainly because I have a 3-year-old daughter. Opinions vary depending on whether you have kids or not. My opinion would probably be different if I didn't have a kid. But I do.” - Melissa Ewing |
Posted by TameThaTane on Apr. 02 2006,2:46 pm
Why the silence about Ferris preemptiveprevention, it's deafening.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 02 2006,9:16 pm
| Quote (TameThaTane @ April 02 2006,2:46pm) |
| Why the silence about Ferris preemptiveprevention, it's deafening. |
< EMPLOYEE CONDUCT AWAY FROM THE JOB ON EMPLOYEE’S TIME >
< MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR PEACE OFFICER LICENSURE >
Posted by TameThaTane on Apr. 03 2006,2:42 am
^^What's that's supposed to mean? Something about penis touching on ones own time is his own business?Your whole sex offender campaign is nothing but a sham.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 03 2006,8:34 am
| Quote (TameThaTane @ April 03 2006,2:42am) |
| ^^What's that's supposed to mean? Something about penis touching on ones own time is his own business? |
< From this: >
G. EMPLOYEE CONDUCT AWAY FROM THE JOB ON EMPLOYEE’S TIME
Whether an arbitrator will discipline/discharge an employee for conduct away from the job site when the employee is not on the employer’s time will depend on the nature of the employee misconduct. Discharge has been ruled to be for just cause when the employee behavior:
1. brings significant harm to the employer’s reputation;
< and from this: >
The following list of convictions pertains to juveniles tried as an adult or any individual 18 years of age or older. A juvenile record does not bar a student from becoming a peace officer in Minnesota.
609.72 Subd. 3 Disorderly conduct (re: vulnerable adult)
243.166 Registration of predatory offenders
243.167 Registration under the predatory offender registration law for other offenses
| Quote (TameThaTane @ April 03 2006,2:42am) |
Your whole sex offender campaign is nothing but a sham. |
Next time take the time to read the links I posted?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 03 2006,12:32 pm
| Quote (TameThaTane @ Mar. 09 2006,9:44pm) |
| I've actually had ugly women "offer" me their children for sex as a way to get me to date them! Of course I'm no freak, but it did show me that there are women out there who "use" kids in a strange way to get men in their lives. These women will never be charged though. |
3T didn't seem that concerned about sex offenders before?
Why the sudden interest?
Posted by TameThaTane on Apr. 03 2006,10:57 pm
BS. I've always been concerned about clarifying the differences between pedophiles and other "sex offenders" Why the sudden and shocking disinterest in you? It is most telling you know.
Telling enough to lead me to believe your whole campaign is nothing but an attention garnering sham!
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 04 2006,12:25 am
| Quote (TameThaTane @ April 03 2006,10:57pm) |
| BS. I've always been concerned about clarifying the differences between pedophiles and other "sex offenders" |
Could you clarify (pedophile or "sex offender") which one is this deputy you keep talking about?
| Quote (TameThaTane @ April 03 2006,10:57pm) |
Why the sudden and shocking disinterest in you? It is most telling you know. |
You say disinterest, but I gave you the information to explore the available options?
| Quote (TameThaTane @ April 03 2006,10:57pm) |
Telling enough to lead me to believe your whole campaign is nothing but an attention garnering sham! |
You are correct
. I want as much attention as possible, but I want the attention on the issue, not me. The more public attention I can get on this whole issue, the better chance of something being done at the capitol!The Minnesota system to deal with sex offenders could be better, and my goal is to make it better.
Would you be so judgemental towards me if this was the legalize marijuana issue?
I would really like to know what you think of this (its my opinion):
Ten years from now people probably won't remember the names of the people involved, but they will remember the changes.
Posted by TheTruth on Apr. 04 2006,12:37 am
Does anyone know if convicted sex offenders are allowed to be members at the Albert Lea YMCA?Anybody want to find out?
| Quote |
| Sex offenders banned The La Crosse Area Family YMCA has shut its doors to sex offenders. After four months of discussion, the board of directors banned sex offenders last month. Executive Director Bill Soper said the organization began discussing the ban in November at the recommendation of the YMCA of the USA. Arnold Collins, spokesman for the YMCA of the USA, said the organization recommends the termination of sex offenders’ memberships and ban of future ones because “the safety of children is so important to YMCAs.” Soper said the local YMCA discussed the issues of statutory rape and the possibility of making exceptions in some cases. Ultimately, the board took a zero-tolerance stance. Of the YMCA’s 8,300 members, five males were convicted sex offenders, Soper said. The offenders were sent a letter explaining the termination. The YMCA plans to announce the ban to members in its spring newsletter. Soper said the ban was a logical step to make because it minimizes the risk to members. “We would never hire an offender, so why should we have them in the building?” Soper said. The YMCA will check new member applications against the National Sex Offender Registry before anyone is admitted. It is not known how many of the 2,594 national branches of the YMCA have passed the ban. |
Posted by Botto 82 on Apr. 04 2006,3:27 am
I see sex offender camps (or is that kamps?) popping up everywhere. It'll be like Treblinka, but without the ovens.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 04 2006,3:02 pm
< New child abuse prevention council formed in county >| Quote |
| April is Child Abuse Prevention Month, and Freeborn County will again have a child abuse prevention council this year after a four-year hiatus. |
Posted by Wolfie on Apr. 04 2006,11:49 pm
Waiting to turn on the showersAnd fire the ovens..........Pink Floyd Waiting for the Worms The Wall
The only good sex offender is a dead sex offender.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 05 2006,3:51 pm
Check out this video.Maybe you can let your children watch it?
< http://www.bacausa.com/Internet/KidsArea.aspx >
Posted by gonefishn on Apr. 05 2006,8:50 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ April 05 2006,3:51pm) |
| Check out this video. Maybe you can let your children watch it? < http://www.bacausa.com/Internet/KidsArea.aspx > |
Bikers Against Child Abuse?
sounds good, is their any around Albert Lea?
I should start FACA, the fishermen against child abuse.
Take hurt children shark fishing and use the perverts as shark bait!
Posted by GEOKARJO on Apr. 06 2006,12:10 pm
| Quote |
| I should start FACA, the fishermen against child abuse |
How about Albert Lea Citizens Against Child Abuse. (ALCACA)
Pronounced AL ____ CACA
Sorry I was Making a joke but there should be Zero Tolerance Laws when it comes to child abuse. Offenders need to be monitored for 10 years after release from a correctional institution sentence determined by the crime.
Posted by Wolfie on Apr. 07 2006,1:16 am
Monitoring hell.............SHOOT the sorry sons a b*tches. I would rather the state spent .25 cents on a damn bullet than 50,000.00 a year for incarciration, rehabilitation (that doesnt work anyways), and monitoring.
Posted by Botto 82 on Apr. 07 2006,2:57 am
The problem with the death penalty for sex offenders is that it removes the likelyhood that a kidnapper/perv would allow his victim to live and identify him. If he ran the risk of the death penalty either way, he'd likely kill his victims to silence them.
Posted by TheTruth on Apr. 07 2006,8:13 pm
Somebody told me a sex offender got arrested last night in Albert Lea?
Posted by munchie on Apr. 07 2006,8:31 pm
| Quote (TheTruth @ April 07 2006,8:13pm) |
| Somebody told me a sex offender got arrested last night in Albert Lea? |
One less pervert!
Posted by Wolfie on Apr. 08 2006,1:39 am
Maybe just maybe if we started actually killing the sons a b*tches that got the death penalty then there wouldnt be as many crimes committed. You know actual consequences for ones actions might deter the next round of criminals. Just a thought.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 08 2006,11:35 pm
< Maplewood City Council considers restricting where convicted molesters can live >| Quote |
| "Studies will show this won't prevent all sex offenses,'' said Trevor Oliver, one of the city's legal counsel who wrote Maplewood's draft ordinance. "We can't come up with an ordinance to prevent first offenses. You can't write an ordinance that bars offenders from living on a block where children live. "But you can write an ordinance that protects places where children congregate.'' |
Posted by Liberal on Apr. 10 2006,10:23 pm
KAAL reported on the sex offender meeting and Dave Mullenbach was sitting there. I wonder why he wasn't listed in the Tribune article? Seems to me that the county residents should have rural representation there.
Posted by TheTruth on Apr. 11 2006,4:36 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ April 10 2006,10:23pm) |
| KAAL reported on the sex offender meeting and Dave Mullenbach was sitting there. I wonder why he wasn't listed in the Tribune article? Seems to me that the county residents should have rural representation there. |
Does that mean the child molester ordinance will be county wide, instead of city wide?
Posted by gonefishn on Apr. 11 2006,11:11 pm
Summers a coming and grandkids will be in town. Will this ordinance be in place before summer is here so I know these molesters won't be right next to the parks when grandkids are visiting?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 13 2006,11:24 pm
< http://www.megannicolekankafoundation.org/federal_law.htm >| Quote |
| The designated State law enforcement agency and any local law enforcement agency authorized by the State agency shall release relevant information that is necessary to protect the public concerning a specific person required to register under this section, except that the identity of a victim of an offense that requires registration under this section shall not be released.". |
< http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:S.1675.ENR: >
| Quote |
| the FBI may release relevant information concerning a person required to register under subsection © that is necessary to protect the public. |
< http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode....0-.html >
| Quote |
| The State or any agency authorized by the State shall release relevant information that is necessary to protect the public concerning a specific person required to register under this section |
Posted by GEOKARJO on Apr. 14 2006,4:00 pm
< I asked the Question on yahoo "Do you think child molesters should live next to schools, parks or daycares?" >
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 15 2006,8:02 am
< The girl was last seen Wednesday afternoon at the library >| Quote |
| Police waited until Thursday night to issue an Amber Alert because no abduction was witnessed and officials suspected she had run away. |
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 15 2006,8:03 am
| Quote (GEOKARJO @ April 14 2006,4:00pm) |
| < I asked the Question on yahoo "Do you think child molesters should live next to schools, parks or daycares?" > |
good idea
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 15 2006,5:16 pm
Sex offender migration continues...< Is this your neighbor? >
Posted by TameThaTane on Apr. 15 2006,5:24 pm
It's only sex offending if you get caught right? You don't seem to concerned about deputy Farris.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 15 2006,6:14 pm
and you didn't seem concerned about the sex offender issue until the Freeborn County Drug Task Force was involved?
Posted by TheTruth on Apr. 15 2006,7:15 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ April 15 2006,6:14pm) |
| and you didn't seem concerned about the sex offender issue until the Freeborn County Drug Task Force was involved? |
I think the point tamethatane is trying to make is penis touchers probably shouldn't be walking around with handcuffs and stun guns.
Posted by TameThaTane on Apr. 15 2006,11:50 pm
| Quote |
| and you didn't seem concerned about the sex offender issue until the Freeborn County Drug Task Force was involved? |
Oh yes...I see. As long one voices their support for the drug war, they get a free pass when it comes to certain sex behaviour. Interesting.
Until you stop protecting Farris, your sex campaign will fall on deaf ears. You're a hypocrite of the highest order.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 16 2006,8:40 am
| Quote (TameThaTane @ April 15 2006,11:50pm) | ||
Oh yes...I see. As long one voices their support for the drug war, they get a free pass when it comes to certain sex behaviour. Interesting. Until you stop protecting Farris, your sex campaign will fall on deaf ears. You're a hypocrite of the highest order. |
war on drugs does not equal a free pass on certain sex behavior.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 16 2006,8:48 am
I have previously posted what could be done. Here is a refresher for 3T. | Quote (preemptiveprevention @ April 03 2006,8:34am) |
| < From this: > G. EMPLOYEE CONDUCT AWAY FROM THE JOB ON EMPLOYEE’S TIME Whether an arbitrator will discipline/discharge an employee for conduct away from the job site when the employee is not on the employer’s time will depend on the nature of the employee misconduct. Discharge has been ruled to be for just cause when the employee behavior: 1. brings significant harm to the employer’s reputation; < and from this: > The following list of convictions pertains to juveniles tried as an adult or any individual 18 years of age or older. A juvenile record does not bar a student from becoming a peace officer in Minnesota. 609.72 Subd. 3 Disorderly conduct 243.166 Registration of predatory offenders 243.167 Registration under the predatory offender registration law for other offenses |
Posted by TheTruth on Apr. 16 2006,7:29 pm
< New light shed on predatory offenders >
Posted by gonefishn on Apr. 17 2006,1:39 pm
| Quote (TheTruth @ April 16 2006,7:29pm) |
| < New light shed on predatory offenders > |
another Dorman sex offender?
How many Dormans are sex offenders?
Is that 2 or 3 now?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 17 2006,3:49 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ April 15 2006,5:16pm) |
| Sex offender migration continues... < Is this your neighbor? > |
| Quote |
| Conviction: Sexual Abuse Third Degree Victim Gender: Male |
Posted by Liberal on Apr. 17 2006,10:38 pm
Wasn't sure which thread to post this in.| Quote |
All Reported Dates of Birth10/26/1982 All Known Aliases/Alternate SpellingsLafavre, Dustin Lee Convictions and SentencingConviction Number: 001 Case Number: 02036644 Court File Number: K602003695 Disposition Date: 07/29/2003 Controlling Agency: Dakota Co So Court Agency: Dakota District Court Assigned Custodial Agency: Dakota County Jail Assigned Probation Agency: Mn Dept Of Corrections/field Services Count Number: 001 General Offense: Statute Description: Crim Sex Cond-3rd Deg-Vict 13-15 Actor >24m older Statute Number: 609.344.1.B Disposition: Convicted Pronounced Fine: $3000 Stayed Fine: $0 Court Cost Amount: $0 Restitution Amount: $0 Assessment Amount: $40 Pronounced Sentence: Probation Sentence: 15 Years Conditional Confinement: 45 Days Conviction Level: Felony < http://www.mncriminals.com/criminaldetail.php?id=22325 > |
< http://profile.myspace.com/index.c....3834650 >
Posted by goodoledays on Apr. 17 2006,11:04 pm
Nice info Liberal.I think this should be in the discussion about the Country Club or have its own thread.
Would he have to register if he came to town?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 17 2006,11:55 pm
sex offenders in Freeborn County or just honest mistakes?you be the judge:
< Victim : 13 - 15 Years Old/Female >
< Assailant : Stranger >
< Victim : 13 - 15 Years Old/Female >
Posted by repdan on Apr. 18 2006,3:07 pm
| Quote (gonefishn @ April 17 2006,1:39pm) | ||
another Dorman sex offender? How many Dormans are sex offenders? Is that 2 or 3 now? |
New light? Maybe I just have a thin skin, but if this is directed at me, get a life. Maybe you want to hold my kids accountable too.
Posted by The Game on Apr. 18 2006,5:43 pm
MySpace Faces a Perp ProblemAccording to his MySpace page, the 41-year-old San Bruno, California, resident is single, a Sagittarius, a nonsmoker and nondrinker, and counts an online stripper among his six friends. But California's online database of registered sex offenders offers a different profile of the same man: convictions for forced sodomy, oral sex and "lewd and lascivious acts" -- all with a person under the age of 14.
A 22-year-old man in San Francisco comes off as a typical college student on MySpace, professing a love for beat poetry, nature and obscure coffee house bands. His profile doesn't mention that he's a convicted child molester.
Wired News ran the names of randomly selected registered sex offenders in San Francisco and neighboring Sonoma County through MySpace's user search engine, and turned up no fewer than five men whose self-reported names, photographs, ages, astrological signs, locations and (in two instances) heights matched those of profiles on the state's online sex offender registry.
In two additional cases, the information posted on MySpace was sufficient to suggest a probable but not certain match. Repeated e-mails to all seven men through MySpace were not answered.
None of the men appeared to have minors listed on their MySpace friends list.
Assuming the profiles are authentic, the easily verified presence of registered sex offenders in the online community highlights the difficulties MySpace faces as it seeks to clean up its content and public image, while maintaining the flexibility and privacy that has drawn more than 70 million users to its website.
Over the past several months, MySpace.com has been hammered by media reports, portraying it as both a safe haven for sexual predators and a dangerous place for naïve teens who post personal, and potentially damaging, information for all the world to see. In response, the Rupert Murdoch-owned company has boosted its security and public relations efforts.
Last week it brought on Microsoft veteran Hemanshu (Hemu) Nigam to fill a new post of chief security officer, and launched an advertising campaign promoting online safety.
Already, one-third of MySpace's rapidly growing staff of 300 is dedicated to customer service and support, looking into images and profiles that potentially violate the site's terms of use. But with an astonishing 270,000 new users registering every day, and a thorny tangle of privacy and legal issues to navigate, MySpace doesn't aspire to keep tabs on everybody.
At the same time, when your company continuously pops up in the news because your service is allegedly being used by sexual predators to exploit teens, having registered sex offenders posting openly on your site just looks bad.
All but one of the offenders Wired News found on MySpace appear to have been convicted of engaging in some kind of sexual activity with a minor. The other, one of the two probable matches, is listed as having raped, penetrated with a foreign object, and engaged in oral sex with an unconscious person.
On MySpace, he's a Christian with a girlfriend and nearly 400 friends.
All of their online profiles, which understandably make no mention of their crimes, were surprisingly easy to find. The search was conducted over the course of a few hours and covered a very limited geographical area. Not every registered sex offender's name was checked. In many cases, profiles matching the name and location of listed offenders were found on MySpace, but the profile was too incomplete to determine a match.
But with five conclusive matches, the endeavor was a bit like searching for a needle in a haystack and pulling out a pin cushion.
Given that MySpace's user base is approaching the combined populations of California, Texas and New York, and the fact that 46 states have online sex offender databases, a more exhaustive search is not only possible, but would likely turn up many more registered sex offenders on the site.
On the surface, the ease with which these profiles can be located seems to undermine MySpace's claims to be cracking down on sex offenders on its servers. But even if the company wanted to use state sex offender registries as a MySpace blacklist, doing so may not be possible or even advisable.
For starters, a registered sex offender is not breaking the law just by participating on the site. (It's for this reason that we've chosen not to identify the ones we found by name.) While a judge may on occasion require a convicted sex offender to, for example, stay out of internet chat rooms or avoid playgrounds, that order ends once a sentence has been served. Afterward, under typical state laws, the perpetrator's only requirement is to register with law enforcement agencies annually, and upon changing residences, for the rest of his life.
"It's not against the law, to be on the site itself, no, unless they're prohibited by probation or parole," said inspector Jim Zerga of the San Francisco Police Department.
Nor are convicted sex offenders violating MySpace's rules by using the site. Felons of every stripe are as welcome. In fact, the only people not allowed on MySpace are those under the age of 14, those who provide false information or fail to maintain the accuracy of their profile, or people who use the service unlawfully.
And if MySpace decided to harvest state registries to boot convicted sex offenders, the move might even land the company in some legal hot water of its own.
"This information is put out there for people to help protect themselves and their families," said Mariam Bedrosian, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Justice, which maintains that state's online sex offender registry. "You can't use it to discriminate against housing and employment."
Would kicking registered sex offenders off a website be illegal? If a case was ever brought, it would be up to a judge to decide whether the action was in violation of Megan's Law -- the statute under which California's list is produced and distributed, according to Bedrosian.
In any event, such a crackdown would amount to little more than a public relations move, because it would only expel sex offenders who, in keeping with MySpace's terms, provide their real name, location and other personal information. Users can easily register and start using MySpace with a completely fake name, address, age and even e-mail address, and one suspects that many people who wish to use the site for ill purposes do just that.
It's a loophole the site has no intention of closing. The reason? Requiring personal verification, such as a credit card number, would create difficulties for the many rock bands, teenagers and non-U.S. users who belong to the community. In short, it would alienate large portions of the site's user base.
"One risk they take -- and I know they think about it -- is if they get overly protective kids will leave," said Larry Magid, a journalist who runs a number of internet safety education websites, including BlogSafety.com.
"MySpace is constantly engaged with local police and investigators regarding the safety of our users," Grossman wrote in an e-mail. "The company cooperates directly with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies to swiftly and thoroughly address any issues affecting the safety of our users."
In many ways, MySpace finds itself in the same situation as eBay in the late 1990s, when it had grown well beyond its own capacity to police itself, and fraud was rampant due to the resulting security loopholes. EBay walked a fine line between punishing bad behavior and alienating its users, many of whom were drifting off to new competitors.
And if MySpace took the extreme step of forbidding registered sex offenders from using its site, what's to stop them from setting up camp at Xanga or Friendster or MyYearbook? Even in the impossible event that all the existing social networking sites became verifiably pervert-free, new sites and new applications would just spring up in their place, bringing about a whole new spate of security problems.
"I've been doing this since 1993, when I first wrote about internet safety," said Magid. "If you go back to that booklet, all of the threats are the same, all the issues are the same, but the venues have changed dramatically. Back then it was newsgroups. IRC was an issue, then chat rooms, instant messaging. Now nobody talks about chat and everybody talks about social networking.
"Five years from now we won't be talking about MySpace," Magid concludes. "I don't know what we'll be talking about, but it will be the same issue in a different venue."
Posted by gonefishn on Apr. 18 2006,8:41 pm
| Quote (repdan @ April 18 2006,3:07pm) | ||||
New light? Maybe I just have a thin skin, but if this is directed at me, get a life. |
I do have a life. I was working today so I could pay taxes so you could get paid to sit in your office at the capitol and type on the computer that I should get a life?
just because you have the same last name as a couple sex offenders doesn't mean you have to tell me to get a life.
With a name like Adonis? Sounds foreign to me, so he probably isn't even your relative anyway!
Posted by repdan on Apr. 18 2006,10:17 pm
First, read the post, it said if it is directed at me, get a life. Second, I should have included truth in the comment.And for the record, he is my nephew. Look back in the posts and you will also fine Erik same crime. But my guy tells me you already know that.
If it is not directed at me, fine. If it is directed at me or my family, it's a cheap shot from people who are hinding behind their computers.
So the Gonefishn and truth.....what was the point? Had to smile thinking back to last year when at least one member of the board was convinced Truth and I were the same person.
I don't mind the political comments from screen names fair game. But I think I also have the right to comment when I think someone has went over the line of good taste.
Glad you were at work. I'm still at the Capital and will be until midnight, not complaining just pointing out the fact. If it makes feel any better, I made less money here than I could have at my store and for $100 you can file for the office and run next November.
Posted by hymiebravo on Apr. 18 2006,11:14 pm
Yea, Truth, I hope that post was for the sake of the kids, and not just to rip on Dan.
Posted by Replicant on Apr. 19 2006,7:37 am
| Quote (goodoledays @ April 17 2006,11:04pm) |
| Nice info Liberal. I think this should be in the discussion about the Country Club or have its own thread. Would he have to register if he came to town? |
I agree, this is information everyone should see, so please do post this in the country club thread as well. I hadn't been following this thread daily, and would have missed it unless someone else told me it was posted here. People involved in the golf discussion should know this too, because they're not necessarily going to be looking on this thread. Thanks Liberal for finding this.
Notice that this was a recent conviction (2003), not a teenage indiscretion. As to registering, it doesn't appear he is a Level 3 offender, so there wouldn't be notification. I doubt he or his parents will move back here anyway. They are just transplants to the metro area who know what's best for us folks who stayed in the sticks.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 19 2006,1:41 pm
< http://www.cleveland.com/news....&coll=2 >| Quote |
| "We wanted to address the growing concerns of the community and do what's best for our children," said Mayor John Piskura, who signed the legislation Wednesday afternoon. |
< http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=4694469&nav=0hBE >
| Quote |
| 25-year-old Travis Staten is a convicted sex offender. His victim was a girl between the ages of 12 and 16. He's registered in Guntersville but was caught living at 609 Brown Street in Boaz, which is just a few blocks away from Boaz High School. "975 feet from the high school, which is way too close," says Deputy Chief of Boaz Police Todd Adams. |
< http://www.midcountychronicle.com/news/2006/0405/Front_Page/001.html >
| Quote |
| Nederland Mayor R. A. "Dick" Nugent said this ordinance should serve as a warning to people who wish to bring harm the area's children to stay away |
<
http://www.fox23news.com/news....rl]
| Quote |
| Waterford Town Supervisor Jack Lawler said, “We thought it was very important to control where sexual offenders could not live and to keep them away from our children.” |
< http://news.kypost.com/apps....014 >
| Quote |
| "This is what our bill is all about," Fletcher said, pointing to about 30 Peaks Mill Elementary School pupils seated behind him. "To protect these young folks." |
Posted by TheTruth on Apr. 19 2006,5:57 pm
| Quote (repdan @ April 18 2006,10:17pm) |
| and for $100 you can file for the office and run next November. |
would you be my campaign manager?
and I think your post was probably directed at me, and not gonfishin?
I was not taking a cheapshot at you or your family. I was bringing up the fact that their was another convicted sex offender in Albert Lea.
(hence the phrase New Light Shed on Predatory Offenders)
and I would like to add that you should not pass judgement on someone because of who they are related to.
Posted by repdan on Apr. 19 2006,6:16 pm
| Quote (TheTruth @ April 19 2006,5:57pm) | ||
would you be my campaign manager? and I think your post was probably directed at me, and not gonfishin? I was not taking a cheapshot at you or your family. I was bringing up the fact that their was another convicted sex offender in Albert Lea. (hence the phrase New Light Shed on Predatory Offenders) and I would like to add that you should not pass judgement on someone because of who they are related to. |
I might, you never know
Posted by Liberal on Apr. 19 2006,9:18 pm
< Reconsideration of U.S. sex-offender laws is a tough sell >| Quote |
That problem has become particularly severe in states where many towns forbid registered offenders from living near schools, parks and other facilities, said New Jersey defence lawyer William Buckman. "We're essentially seeing people forced into refugee status," said Buckman, a board member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The experts say the major thing in preventing recidivism is to allow offenders to rebuild their lives, put down roots. But because of feel-good, poorly thought-out, knee-jerk reactions by politicians, the effect is to increase recidivism." Those advocating reconsideration of sex offender laws aren't suggesting authorities back away from vigilant monitoring. They note some states have developed sophisticated risk-assessment systems for deciding which offenders are listed in publicly available registries, so the whereabouts of high-risk offenders are known while lesser risks are granted more anonymity. |
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 19 2006,10:12 pm
I agree with this in the article:| Quote |
| "All these draconian Sex Offender Registry Acts need to be trimmed back - eliminating people who never should have been on in the first place," said Arthur Benson, the lawyer handling the lawsuit |
but when I read this:
| Quote |
| They note some states have developed sophisticated risk-assessment systems for deciding which offenders are listed in publicly available registries, so the whereabouts of high-risk offenders are known while lesser risks are granted more anonymity. |
I thought of this:
< Recidivism of Sex Offenders >
| Quote |
| It is crucial to keep in mind, however, that there are no absolutes or "magic bullets" in the process of identifying these risk factors. Rather, this process is an exercise in isolating factors that tend to be associated with specific behaviors. While this association reflects a likelihood, it does not indicate that all individuals who possess certain characteristics will behave in a certain manner. Some sex offenders will inevitably commit subsequent sex offenses, in spite of our best efforts to identify risk factors and institute management and treatment processes aimed at minimizing these conditions. Likewise, not all sex offenders who have reoffense risk characteristics will recidivate. |
Posted by Mamma on Apr. 20 2006,7:40 am
I was thinking about this guy in Glenville that lives next to a bunch of little girls. I had heard that he had been arrested at one time. This morning I looked him up....and sure enough.....I wonder why none of this showed up on the sexual predators sites or the sex offenders sites. His name is Keith Chrs and he has convictions for first degree sexual assault, trespassing, exposing himself, and another I forgot. If I remember correctly he had sexually assaulted his sister and HIS MOTHER. If he lived in my neighborhood I would surely want to know. This guy is a real loser.
Posted by The Coach on Apr. 20 2006,9:03 am
< Sex offender law denied by Austin city council >
Posted by GEOKARJO on Apr. 20 2006,10:16 am
Austin is just a porker town anyway everyone over there smelling death and pig remains cooking all the time, it has to be effecting the intelligence factor. They don't call it Stabbyville for nothing.
Posted by Iris on Apr. 20 2006,10:16 am
Preemptive.. those three guys you listed on the last page.. do they have to register? Do they live around here? Thanks for the info!
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 20 2006,12:14 pm
| Quote (Iris @ April 20 2006,10:16am) |
| Preemptive.. those three guys you listed on the last page.. do they have to register? Do they live around here? Thanks for the info! |
< this one lives by St. Theodore's >
and to answer your question I have to quote what somebody said in the paper:
Steve King with Mower County corrections.
| Quote |
| King said Minnesota's notification and supervision system for sex offenders, which includes registering addresses and property with law enforcement, is the best in the country. |
< This guy is not listed as a sex offender to the public as a sex offender >
< Neither is this guy >
< not this one either >
all I know about them is they were convicted and they live in Freeborn County.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 20 2006,12:25 pm
If you have children and this man is your neighbor you have a right to know! (unless you live in Minnesota)| Quote |
| KEITH CHRS 03/27/1992 Convicted Trespass Misdemeanor 03/27/1992 Convicted Criminal sexual conduct-first degree-penetrate Felony 04/02/1992 Convicted Criminal sexual conduct-first degree-penetrate Felony 10/16/2001 Convicted Indecent Exposure Gross Misdemeanor 02/13/2002 Convicted Indecent Exposure Felony |
Posted by Tiger on Apr. 20 2006,1:12 pm
Do you have a photo of the above guy?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 20 2006,3:56 pm
No I don't.I can't get his picture because he is not listed as a sex offender to the public?
Posted by Replicant on Apr. 21 2006,11:57 am
< Uncle Kenny's dungeon inspires crackdown >| Quote |
| Kenneth Glenn Hinson, 47, had no children but seemed to treat his neighbors' kids as if they were his own. He would pile them into his pickup truck for weekend outings at Johnson Lake and roast marshmallows with them during sleepovers at his home. "My kids stayed down there, camped down there with him and cooked down there with him," said Donna McGee, who knew Hinson for four years. "Nobody ever suspected anything." They didn't know that Hinson had spent nine years in prison for raping a 12-year-old girl in 1991. Or that 15 years later, he would be charged with another crime so outrageous that South Carolina lawmakers would test the constitutional limits of the death penalty by proposing the execution of repeat child rapists. |
Posted by Two Bears on Apr. 21 2006,12:57 pm
Well if we can pass the sex offender law in Albert Lea then maybe the local sex offender(S) will drift over to Austin to live and stalk thier kids:D
Posted by Botto 82 on Apr. 21 2006,3:57 pm
Statistics bear out that the vast majority of sex offenders choose victims that know them. This "feel good" legislation will do little to stem the tide of these pedophile activities. A better use of the process would be to legislate stiffer penalties and funding for lengthier civil commitments.
(This is TTT's cue to comment against all the maryjane growers taking up valuable prison and jail space.)
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 21 2006,4:43 pm
Think about this:A child is molested. The person that was convicted of molesting the child lives right next to a school.
The child molester leaves for work about the same time the child goes to school.
Everyday when the child goes to school they have to see the person that molested them.
What kind of effect will that have on the childs education if everyday the child has to see the molester right before they walk into school?
What kind of effect will that have on the childs emotions?
Posted by Wareagle11B on Apr. 22 2006,12:41 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ April 21 2006,4:43pm) |
| Think about this: A child is molested. The person that was convicted of molesting the child lives right next to a school. The child molester leaves for work about the same time the child goes to school. Everyday when the child goes to school they have to see the person that molested them. What kind of effect will that have on the childs education if everyday the child has to see the molester right before they walk into school? What kind of effect will that have on the childs emotions? |
To counter your argument Pre think about this.
1) Most courts will not allow a convicted sexual predator to live anywhere near their victims. To do so, as most courts know, would invite some serious problems.
2) What happens if this convicted predator has no choice but to go past a school because of where they work. Perhaps it is near the school, playground etc that they work. Do we then deny them a job at a place they may have worked at for many years? It may be that they have to walk to work and as such they have to walk past these places.
This proposal is a good idea but what will the end results truly be? It will only force a predator to adjust their ways and in the end it will not truly stop someone who is set on re-offending. This issue needs to be handled at the state so that the penalties will be a statewide mandate and so each town doesn't have differing penalties where one is perhaps more "lenient" than a town 5 miles away.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 22 2006,5:19 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ April 22 2006,12:41pm) | ||
To counter your argument Pre think about this. 1) Most courts will not allow a convicted sexual predator to live anywhere near their victims. To do so, as most courts know, would invite some serious problems. |
If a parent decides to rape or molest their own child, the goal of the State of Minnesota is to put the offending parent back in the home with the child they took the innocence from once they have done their time (if they go to prison, usually just probation). If a parent will molest their own child, should they be around any children?
So the courts will allow the convicted sexual predator to live in the same house as their victim.
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ April 22 2006,12:41pm) |
2) What happens if this convicted predator has no choice but to go past a school because of where they work. Perhaps it is near the school, playground etc that they work. Do we then deny them a job at a place they may have worked at for many years? It may be that they have to walk to work and as such they have to walk past these places. |
Should a convicted child molester be working right next door to a school or park? Think about the chances they would have to start "grooming" a child.
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ April 22 2006,12:41pm) |
This proposal is a good idea but what will the end results truly be? It will only force a predator to adjust their ways and in the end it will not truly stop someone who is set on re-offending. |
This could give the ones who are set on reoffending less chances to carry out their actions of taking a childs innocence, and the convicted child molesters who are undecided whether or not they will not reoffend might not want to anymore.
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ April 22 2006,12:41pm) |
This issue needs to be handled at the state so that the penalties will be a statewide mandate and so each town doesn't have differing penalties where one is perhaps more "lenient" than a town 5 miles away. |
I disagree, I think the safety of the children of Albert Lea is an Albert Lea issue, and a state issue. Not just a state issue.
I wish the state would do something like you say, but I don't want to have to wait for the state to protect the children.
Child Molesters hurt children, so we should keep them away from children!
Posted by TheTruth on Apr. 22 2006,6:33 pm
| Quote (TameThaTane @ April 15 2006,5:24pm) |
| It's only sex offending if you get caught right? You don't seem to concerned about deputy Farris. |
I agree, why don't you take a stand against a convicted penis toucher?
who just happens to be a deputy sheriff?
Doesn't it bother you that a convicted penis toucher is driving around Freeborn County right now with handcuffs?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 22 2006,10:06 pm
| Quote (TheTruth @ April 22 2006,6:33pm) | ||
I agree, why don't you take a stand against a convicted penis toucher? who just happens to be a deputy sheriff? Doesn't it bother you that a convicted penis toucher is driving around Freeborn County right now with handcuffs? |
This is for 5T (3T+2T=5T)
I have posted what can be done. Read my previous posts.
Posted by irisheyes on Apr. 23 2006,12:00 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ April 20 2006,12:14pm) |
| < This guy is not listed as a sex offender to the public as a sex offender > < Neither is this guy > < not this one either > all I know about them is they were convicted and they live in Freeborn County. |
Atleast 2 out of the 3 listed here are involving statutory rape cases. In other words, not forced rape.
I realize that there's a reason for laws against this, but I don't think it's necessary to notify local residents when someone with a conviction like this moves near them. It isn't too strange for a senior to take a sophomore, or even a freshmen to prom.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Apr. 23 2006,11:29 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ April 22 2006,5:19pm) |
| If a parent decides to rape or molest their own child, the goal of the State of Minnesota is to put the offending parent back in the home with the child they took the innocence from once they have done their time (if they go to prison, usually just probation). If a parent will molest their own child, should they be around any children? So the courts will allow the convicted sexual predator to live in the same house as their victim. Is their a place of employment in Albert Lea that you absolutely can not get to without going past a school? (I am not saying their isn't, I just haven't thought of one yet) Should a convicted child molester be working right next door to a school or park? Think about the chances they would have to start "grooming" a child. This could give the ones who are set on reoffending less chances to carry out their actions of taking a childs innocence, and the convicted child molesters who are undecided whether or not they will not reoffend might not want to anymore. I disagree, I think the safety of the children of Albert Lea is an Albert Lea issue, and a state issue. Not just a state issue. I wish the state would do something like you say, but I don't want to have to wait for the state to protect the children. Child Molesters hurt children, so we should keep them away from children! |
Once again I will state that this is an issue that the State needs to handle so the law(s) will be straight across the board and no more seperate interpretations depending on the judge and/or lawyers. If the State is set on putting a convicted sexual predator, that is also the childs parent, back into the same home with his/her victim then the State is responsible for changing that set of laws and not the cities.
My reference to where a sexual predator may work and how he/she has to get there was only a general point. I know of no place in AL that you have to go by any schools as the ONLY means to get to that place. This is not to say that other cities in MN are not that way. The state would be wrong to force a person, whether a sexual predator or otherwise, to leave a job they may have had for years just because of that conviction. This would cause them to lose any benefits, pensions, etc and basically force them to start all over. In other words this would quite possibly raise the risk of them reoffending.
This would not lessen their chances by any significant degree either Pre. It would force them to adapt to the changes and nothing more. Garfield Avenue is a prime example as far as schools go. A sexual predator could live just outside the limit set by this ordinance and still be on a major route travelled by kids every day. Remember that the school board has set a limit by which children who live close to a school cannot ride a bus but either have to walk or get a ride from their parents. Those living on the edge of that limit and choose to walk to school would be at the most risk because of this policy.
I agree that it is an Albert Lea issue where the safety of our children is concerned. More than the city however it is the parents who are ultimately responsible. As someone said in another topic, look at all the kids who don't wear a helmet when riding a bike. My daughter does because we as parents make certain she wears it. However there are way to many parents in this town who could care less about their children's safety. The big thing is that it is the state who can settle this issue by setting laws in place that counties and cities can use as a reference point when they create laws/ordinances regarding such issues as sexual predators.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 23 2006,11:40 am
What do you think about the sex offender walking his dog at the school park (I believe it was Hawthorne) here in Albert Lea? Isn't a dog one way child molesters get close to children so they can start grooming them? No laws preventing him from being at the school park.
Will he get caught trying to groom a child, or will get caught after he hurts a child?
or should the city pass an ordinance so the police can arrest him next time he goes to the school park?
or should we wait and hope for the state to pass legislation and pray that happens before a convicted child molester preys on a child at a school or a park in Albert Lea?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 23 2006,12:33 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ April 23 2006,11:29am) |
| More than the city however it is the parents who are ultimately responsible. |
Very important point to bring up.
Parents need to pay attention to their children.
and the city needs to help protect the children by giving the parents and the police more public safety tools to use against convicted child molesters trying to prey on more innocent children.
Posted by TheTruth on Apr. 24 2006,12:13 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ April 22 2006,10:06pm) | ||||
This is for 5T (3T+2T=5T) I have posted what can be done. Read my previous posts. |
You have posted what can be done, but what have you done?
Posted by Wareagle11B on Apr. 24 2006,11:16 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ April 23 2006,11:40am) |
| What do you think about the sex offender walking his dog at the school park (I believe it was Hawthorne) here in Albert Lea? Isn't a dog one way child molesters get close to children so they can start grooming them? No laws preventing him from being at the school park. Will he get caught trying to groom a child, or will get caught after he hurts a child? or should the city pass an ordinance so the police can arrest him next time he goes to the school park? or should we wait and hope for the state to pass legislation and pray that happens before a convicted child molester preys on a child at a school or a park in Albert Lea? |
If the intent of this ordinance is to keep these sexual predators out of our parks then this ordinance will fall to the legal system. We cannot even think that keeping them away from the parks and pools will succeed in a court of law. I believe this ordinance is to keep them from LIVING near these places and not preventing them from going to them.
What would you have the police do as far as "grooming" a child goes? He/she can always state he/she was merely talking to this child and nothing more. It is unfortunate but true that until a predator actually commits a crime the police will be unable to stop him/her. So the answer to your question about will he get caught trying to groom a child or after he hurts that child is going to be unfortunately the latter and not the former. Unless he is on parole/probation that specifically states he is to stay away from children then this predator will have committed no crime by merely talking to a child. This, once again, falls upon the state to make the citizens aware of who these people are and where they live etc etc.
ALL predators need to be on a statewide website and not just the Level 3 offenders. This will keep the citizens informed and thus make us aware of who these predators are and where they live and whether or not they are in our neighborhoods.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Apr. 24 2006,12:50 pm
| Quote (TheTruth @ April 24 2006,12:13am) | ||||||
You have posted what can be done, but what have you done? |
He sits on the committee to develop an ordinance, he has petitioned the city and he has went door to door collecting signatures.
What have you done?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 24 2006,2:42 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ April 24 2006,11:16am) |
| If the intent of this ordinance is to keep these sexual predators out of our parks then this ordinance will fall to the legal system. We cannot even think that keeping them away from the parks and pools will succeed in a court of law. |
Actually the United States Court of Appeals said it will succeed (atleast in this case, a similar case is being challenged in North Carolina right now)
| Quote |
| In Doe v. City of Lafayette, 377 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reheard en banc a case that had been decided previously by a three-judge panel (Doe v. City of Lafayette, Indiana, 334 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2003). The district court granted summary judgment to the city, reasoning that there could be no First Amendment violation in the absence of expressive speech and that the city's legitimate interest in protecting its children justified the incidental impact on Mr. Doe's thoughts. As for the Fourteenth Amendment, the district court held that there was no fundamental right to enter city parks and that the ban was rationally related to the city's legitimate interest. The case was appealed and a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the ban violated Mr. Doe's First Amendment right to freedom of thought. On the city's petition, the Seventh Circuit reheard the case en banc. In an eight-to-three vote, the en banc Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. |
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 24 2006,2:46 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ April 24 2006,11:16am) |
| ALL predators need to be on a statewide website and not just the Level 3 offenders. This will keep the citizens informed and thus make us aware of who these predators are and where they live and whether or not they are in our neighborhoods. |
Especially the convicted child molesters that prey on children, but until the state decides to do something, the city should do what they can to help protect the children.
Posted by TheTruth on Apr. 27 2006,11:54 am
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ April 23 2006,11:29am) |
| The state would be wrong to force a person, whether a sexual predator or otherwise, to leave a job they may have had for years just because of that conviction. This would cause them to lose any benefits, pensions, etc and basically force them to start all over. |
This ones for you pre!
is this why the freeborn deputy didn't lose his job?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 27 2006,4:47 pm
Operation Falcon 2nationwide:
| Quote |
| More than 1,100 alleged sex offenders caught in weeklong fugitive roundup WASHINGTON (AP) — Ten years to the day after allegedly raping a 14-year-old girl, a California man was arrested in a roundup of fugitives that law enforcement officials say snared more than 1,100 sex offenders. The concentrated search for people wanted for federal, state and local crimes "targeted the worst of the worst," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Thursday at a news conference announcing the results of "Operation Falcon II." Authorities arrested 9,037 people April 17 to last Sunday in a 27-state dragnet led by the U.S. Marshals Service and timed to coincide with National Victims Rights Week. Among those apprehended were 1,102 people wanted for violent sex crimes or failure to register as sex offenders. No other single law enforcement operation had resulted in the capture of as many suspected sex offenders, the Justice Department said. The arrests came mainly in states west of the Mississippi River, and in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Gonzales has directed investigators to focus on sex crimes as part of his effort to call attention to child pornography and other crimes against children. |
in Minnesota:
| Quote |
| 110 people arrested in Minnesota in national criminal roundup Associated Press MINNEAPOLIS - The U.S. Attorney for Minnesota has announced the arrest of 110 people related to a national criminal roundup. The fugitives were captured as part of a federal initiative called "Operation Falcon Two." Nationwide, nearly ten-thousand people were captured in the roundup that began April 17th and ended Sunday. U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose (pah-LOHS') says local, state and federal agencies worked together to locate -- quote -- "the worst of the worst." All but 20 of the fugitives captured in Minnesota were caught in the Twin Cities region. |
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 27 2006,6:48 pm
How could things like this be prevented?| Quote |
| Sex Offender Arrested for Lewd Act Near Day Care Thu 04/20/2006 - The Mother picking up her child at a Fitchburg day care center Friday says she looked out the window Friday, and saw a man, sitting 40 feet away in his apartment, acting strange. "(He was) sort of sitting there in his window in his underpants, and I thought it was odd. Probably ten minutes later, I saw that he was doing something other than just sitting there at his computer. First it looked like he was just scratching, then I realized what he was doing." The Mother said. Fitchburg Police arrested 26 year old Nicholas Lassen, and a check of his criminal history revealed Lassen was convicted of 2nd degree Criminal sexual Conduct in Winona, Minnesota when he was fourteen. The victim in the case was 5 years old. The children in the day care room across from his apartment were ages 4-8. Dane County Assistant D.A. Mike Verveer told the court, "The defendant was caught masturbating in front of a window looking over a child care center in the City of Fitchburg." The Court Commissioner ordered a $2,000 cash bail, and said if released, Lassen cannot return to the apartment on King James Way, or be in that area, without a police escort. He also cannot live within 1000 feet of a school or day care. The Day Care installed blinds on the back window. |
Posted by Wareagle11B on Apr. 27 2006,8:21 pm
| Quote (TheTruth @ April 27 2006,11:54am) | ||
This ones for you pre! is this why the freeborn deputy didn't lose his job? |
Actually Truth in the case of this Deputy I would have to side with those who think he should be relieved of his job. He is in a position of public trust and then broke that trust by commiting this act. I do not believe that he should continue to be in the position he is in due to his conviction. My point to the piece you quoted was directed more towards those who work in regular "blue" collar non civil servant type jobs. People who abuse the publics trust by commiting such acts as this deputy did do not deserve to continue to hold their respective positions.
That being said it happened on the previous Sheriff's watch and thus Sheriff Harig inherited the problem and he chose to continue to allow the deputy to remain with the department as his predecessor did. The blame rightfully belongs with the sheriff who allowed him to remain in his job and not Sheriff Harig.
Posted by MADDOG on Apr. 28 2006,6:10 am
North Central Iowa rown passes sex offender ordinance.From WHO TV Des Moines
| Quote |
| Oelwein Toughens Sex Offender Restrictions Oelwein, April 25th, 2006 (AP)--Child molesters in Oelwein have a new law to follow. The City Council has approved an ordinance restricting where they can go. A new state law restricts convicted sex offenders from living within two-thousand feet of a school or day care. Oelwein's new law goes beyond that and prohibits them from being within 250 feet of a school, day care, public park, swimming pool, recreation center, library and bicycle trails. Police Chief Jeremy Logan suggested the measure last December, saying state law doesn't go far enough to protect children. The City Council unanimously approved the ordinance yesterday. |
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 28 2006,8:42 pm
In Wisconsin:| Quote |
| Child Molesters Could Face Mandatory Prison Time (AP) MADISON Child molesters would face mandatory prison time under a bill the state Assembly passed today and sent to the governor for signing. The Assembly approved the Republican-authored measure on a voice vote with no debate. The Senate passed the bill back in March. It now goes to Democratic Governor Jim Doyle for his signature ... and his aides say he supports the measure. Under the bill, judges must sentence anyone convicted of sexual intercourse with a child under 12 to at least 25 years in prison. Also, anyone convicted of sexual intercourse with a child under 16 by use or threat of force or violence would face a mandatory 25 years in prison. And anyone 18 years old or older convicted of sexual contact with a child under 16 by the use or threat of force or violence would face a mandatory five years in prison. |
Posted by munchie on Apr. 28 2006,10:07 pm
Whats the deal with the sex offender that escaped from st. peter?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 29 2006,9:21 pm
This is just WRONG!!| Quote |
| Posted April 27, 2006 County recharges sex offender By Jim Collar of The Northwestern Winnebago County prosecutors on Wednesday charged a sex offender with a repeat crime for the third time in less than a week. Joseph M. Wyatt, 35, was charged with first-degree sexual assault in Winnebago County Circuit Court Wednesday. According to the criminal complaint, the man in February touched a 5-year-old girl in an inappropriate manner about two months after he was released from prison. The child was born as result of the criminal activity that initially landed him behind bars. He spent three years in prison after being convicted in 2002 for having an unforced sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl. He was arrested after paternity tests of the baby showed him to be the father, court records show. |
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Apr. 30 2006,7:44 am
| Quote (TheTruth @ April 22 2006,6:33pm) | ||
I agree, why don't you take a stand against a convicted penis toucher? who just happens to be a deputy sheriff? Doesn't it bother you that a convicted penis toucher is driving around Freeborn County right now with handcuffs? |
Let me answer this with a couple of questions.
Should a DARE officer be out getting drunk with his friends? (NO)
Should a deputy sheriff be allowed to keep his job after touching a minor in a very private spot? (NO)
Should a DARE officer be allowed to use alcohol as an excuse for breaking the law? (NO)
and my final question...
How come nobody raised hell back when this happened?
(somebody else can answer this one)
Posted by Liberal on May 04 2006,12:55 am
| Quote |
The idea of a new sex offender ordinance is Albert Lea has fizzled, but the cities commitment to dealing with the problem has taken on a new form. The idea of limiting where sex offenders can live was brought to the city council several weeks ago in the form of a petition with over 1-thousand signatures. A task force was formed and Wednesday afternoon. They decided it was best not to pursue such an ordinance. < http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12393013/ > |
Last I heard Mullenbach was saying this might be a county wide ordinance, and George Marin wanted the ordinance in place by summer.
| Quote |
County ... · Sex offender ordinance could be county-wide. < The Land Between the Lakes Action Team (materia muy muy importante) > |
| Quote |
Councilor Marin added that he would like this ordinance passed by the City Council prior to summer break. He stated that we need a starting point to protect our children and suggested representatives from the Police Department, Human Services, Court Services, Human Rights Commission, School District and perhaps the religious community be appointed to this committee. He asked that the committee not focus too much on the constitutional rights of these predators keeping in mind that the predators didn’t care about the rights of their victims. He also requested he be appointed to the committee representing the City Council. < March 13, 2006 City Council Minutes > |
Posted by Ole1kanobe on May 04 2006,9:07 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ April 30 2006,7:44am) | ||||
Let me answer this with a couple of questions. Should a DARE officer be out getting drunk with his friends? (NO) Should a deputy sheriff be allowed to keep his job after touching a minor in a very private spot? (NO) Should a DARE officer be allowed to use alcohol as an excuse for breaking the law? (NO) and my final question... How come nobody raised hell back when this happened? (somebody else can answer this one) |
If I remember right, some hell was raised over this issue, but those who did complain were not part of the AL elite, so nothing was done about it.
Imagine that
As to an offender riding around on the tax payer's dime with handcuffs, let's not forget about the guns that he carries while he is in that car and the 'power' allotted to him by the county to pretty much do as he pleases. Do you think that if the deputy in question responded to a call where there were children present and the parent(s) asked for the deputy to leave the property because of his past actions with a minor he would do it? Odds are no, that is the kind of power he is allotted, might as well let all sex offenders go wherever they want to then, otherwise it could be brought to court as possible discrimination.
Maybe there is a connection to him getting off (no pun intended) and the lack of an ordinance being passed in the city/county? The city and county are pretty good at protecting their own, after all.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on May 04 2006,2:06 pm
Somebody suggested that if the city doesn't want to restrict where convicted child molesters can live, restrict where they can go. The suggestion was for a city ordinance that would make it against the law for a convicted child molester to go to places that children congregate such as schools and the city swimming pool.
They said no?
I do not understand why the city would want a convicted child molester at the schools, but I really do not understand why the city would want convicted child molesters at the city swimming pool.
Posted by Liberal on May 04 2006,5:53 pm
| Quote |
(KAAL) -- A proposed sex offender ordinance in Albert Lea, is no longer being considered. The committee of city leaders and community members decided not to pursue the proposed ordinance to restrict where sex offenders can live in Albert Lea. The committee decided the ordinance would not help better track sex offenders, and that law enforcement already has a strong handle on the situation... ...Mayor Summers says the committee heard from several experts on the topic before making its decision. < http://www.kaaltv.com/article/view/99717/ > |
Didn't our elected representatives give them specific instructions to "study and draft" an ordinance?
| Quote |
Councilor Severtson moved to form a committee to study and draft an ordinance that is clear and will work for everyone. Councilor Marin seconded the motion. |
Posted by GEOKARJO on May 04 2006,6:00 pm
another example of "Government Knows Best"
Posted by TheTruth on May 04 2006,9:45 pm
I can think of one good reason why this ordinance to help protect the children of this community was denied........or maybe the city likes child molesters moving to Albert Lea from Iowa?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on May 04 2006,11:45 pm
'Dru's Law' was approved by the Senate today. here is some text of the bill:
| Quote |
| Information Available in Public Registry- With respect to any person convicted of a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor or a sexually violent offense, or any sexually violent predator, required to register with a minimally sufficient sexual offender registration program within a State, including a program established under section 170101 of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14071(b)), the public registry shall provide, to the extent available in the National Sex Offender Registry (1) the name and any known aliases of the person; (2) the date of birth of the person; (3) the current address of the person and any subsequent changes of that address; (4) a physical description and current photograph of the person; (5) the nature of and date of commission of the offense by the person; (6) the date on which the person is released from prison, or placed on parole, supervised release, or probation; and (7) any other information the Attorney General considers appropriate. |
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 06 2006,10:25 pm
| Quote |
Hockey Coach Charged with Child Porn 06/06/2006 A youth hockey coach will be charged with multiple sex-related crimes for sending inappropriate e-mails to a Rochester teen. Sheriff Deputies arrested Dennis Jones, 32, for possession of child pornography and trying to engage in sexual conduct and prostitution with a child. Besides working on the rinks at Graham Arena, we're told Jones was an 8th and 9th grade assistant coach and ran a Sunday night goalie clinic for Rochester Youth Hockey last season. |
Has anyone seen a picture of this guy?
Posted by Reverend George on Jun. 06 2006,11:28 pm
I saw him on the news I think he resembles one of the locals in the movie deliverance.
Posted by Reverend George on Jun. 07 2006,1:32 pm
| Quote |
| A look at the suspect arrested in connection with the bikini strangulation death of 20-year-old Tiffany Marie Souers: Age: 35 Home: Dandridge, Tenn. Occupation: Construction worker Criminal History: Registered sex offender paroled in September 2005. Has served time in Florida for armed sexual battery, armed robbery, armed burglary, grand theft auto, kidnapping and aggravated assault. Tattoos: At least 14, including five skulls, a bat, a woman, a pentagram, a cross, a gun, a dagger and a dragon. Bond: Set at $1 million. |
Posted by ICU812 on Jun. 07 2006,2:17 pm
"Coach"
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 07 2006,2:26 pm
Apparently they do background checks on the coaches, but don't look at pictures. Do you think this guy could ever find unbiased jurors that wouldn't take his personal appearance into consideration?
Posted by TameThaTane on Jun. 07 2006,6:26 pm
I guess Geo wasn't kidding! The "Denny Jones Goalie School". ---Teaching boys to shoot and score
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jun. 07 2006,8:07 pm
< Here is a list of Iowa Sex Offenders in Albert Lea. (The list has changed in recent months) >
Posted by TameThaTane on Jun. 08 2006,12:04 am
Why do you want to know who they are and where they live. looking for a date?
Posted by cheeba on Jun. 08 2006,8:14 am
TTT that was just plain uncalled for. I wanna know who is my neighbor is and I appriciate preemptiveprevention's postings to keep us all updated on that. So please keep your not funny and rude comments elsewhere.
Posted by Mamma on Jun. 08 2006,8:46 am
I thought that comments liked TTT just made were the reason we had moderators on here. It should be removed. The only reason he wrote it was for shock value and to get a little attention. REMOVE IT.
Posted by Botto 82 on Jun. 08 2006,1:19 pm
That coach looks like he took one too many pucks to the head...
Posted by Botto 82 on Jun. 08 2006,1:21 pm
| Quote (Mamma @ June 08 2006,8:46am) |
| I thought that comments liked TTT just made were the reason we had moderators on here. It should be removed. The only reason he wrote it was for shock value and to get a little attention. REMOVE IT. |
Thing is, somebody in their infinite wisdom, took the easy way out and made TTT a
Posted by TameThaTane on Jun. 08 2006,1:42 pm
Ya, all mods should think alike and that thinking should always coincide with yours.
Posted by Botto 82 on Jun. 08 2006,2:45 pm
There are differences of opinion (always welcome), and then there's your ongoing act of opening your virtual mouth only long enough to change feet. And the latter is getting old. Speaking of old, how old are you, really? Twelve would be my guess...
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jun. 08 2006,6:03 pm
I said:| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ June 07 2006,8:07pm) |
| < Here is a list of Iowa Sex Offenders in Albert Lea. (The list has changed in recent months) > |
You said:
| Quote (TameThaTane @ June 08 2006,12:04am) |
| Why do you want to know who they are and where they live. looking for a date? |
I know people get tired of me posting about sex offenders, just like people get tired of you posting about your dope.
I saw people were posting on the sex offender thread again so I took the chance to post an updated list of the Iowa sex offenders in Albert Lea. (2 moved away from Albert Lea, and 2 moved into Albert Lea in the past few months)
and if you check the addresses of the 2 new ones, they are very close to the childrens library.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jun. 09 2006,1:59 am
< Most likely not a sex offender, but you might want to keep this guy away from your kids! >
Posted by TameThaTane on Jun. 09 2006,2:48 am
Probably?
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jun. 09 2006,10:04 am
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ June 09 2006,1:59am) |
| < Most likely not a sex offender, but you might want to keep this guy away from your |
Posted by Two Bears on Jun. 09 2006,12:56 pm
Keep posting the pictures of the child molester pervert bastards so everybody remembers just who they are.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jun. 09 2006,6:45 pm
< click this link and decide, Sex Offender living in Albert Lea or someone that made an honest mistake?(victim was a female age 13-15) >
Posted by cheeba on Jun. 13 2006,10:15 am
| Quote |
| Man charged with molestation By Joseph Marks, staff writer Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:42 AM CDT An Albert Lea man was charged Friday with felony criminal sexual conduct with a child, the result of an approximately four-month investigation by Albert Lea police detective Frank Kohl. Jeremy David Johnson, 25, of Albert Lea admitted to performing oral sex on a 14-year-old Freeborn County boy about five times since August of 2005, according to a criminal complaint issued in Freeborn County District Court. The complaint states Johnson admitted to having sexual contact with a separate boy, 13, of Freeborn County, and denied police claims of sexual contact with a second 13-year-old boy. The 14-year-old boy allegedly told police he first met Johnson in August and Johnson performed oral sex on him twice since that time. The first 13-year-old boy reportedly told police he awoke during a camping trip with Johnson and found Johnson's hand on his penis. He also reportedly told police Johnson asked several times to perform oral sex on him. The second 13-year-old boy reportedly told police Johnson also asked to perform oral sex on him several times. Johnson was charged with two counts of criminal sexual conduct and three counts of solicitation of children to engage in sexual conduct. The charges carry a maximum penalty of 49 years in prison and $80,000 in fines. |
I just about threw up reading this.
Posted by TameThaTane on Jun. 13 2006,11:51 am
Do you mean after you rubbed one out in the bathroom? I'm not fooled...
Posted by sumpdump on Jun. 13 2006,12:17 pm
I would just like to say that if there are any of you molesters reading this, that if I ever catch you around or even close to my child, or any others that live around me..... You will wish that the cops got you before I do!Fear what you dont know.....:angry:
Keep posting these perverts faces names and addresses!
Posted by menace616 on Jun. 13 2006,1:08 pm
Here's the creep!!!
Posted by Botto 82 on Jun. 13 2006,2:59 pm
It looks like Radar O' Riley, with a hangover.
Posted by Dustin Petersen on Jun. 13 2006,3:08 pm
| Quote (Botto 82 @ June 13 2006,2:59pm) |
| It looks like Radar O' Riley, with a hangover. |
Someone's been spiking his Grape Nehi again!
Posted by Two Bears on Jun. 13 2006,3:10 pm
| Quote (menace616 @ June 13 2006,1:08pm) |
| Here's the creep!!! |
Was this guy a registered sex offender in freeborn county?
Posted by Dustin Petersen on Jun. 13 2006,3:18 pm
| Quote (Two Bears @ June 13 2006,3:10pm) | ||
Was this guy a registered sex offender in freeborn county? |
< From the other thread >
Looks that way. Click the link and scroll down to menace616's post.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jun. 13 2006,4:50 pm
A convicted Posted by TameThaTane on Jun. 13 2006,9:26 pm
Just more proof of Albert Lea being an inbred town.
Posted by wicked on Jun. 13 2006,10:20 pm
When is Albert lea gonna realize that something needs to be done? I guess the children arent their top priority.
Posted by TameThaTane on Jun. 13 2006,10:30 pm
Teens partying is, has been and continues to be the priorty.Why the second handle of wicked preemtive? We see IP's you know...
Posted by wicked on Jun. 13 2006,11:01 pm
| Quote (TameThaTane @ June 13 2006,10:30pm) |
| Teens partying is, has been and continues to be the priorty. Why the second handle of wicked preemtive? We see IP's you know... |
uh no more then one person can have the same ip address.
Posted by wicked on Jun. 13 2006,11:03 pm
| Quote (wicked @ June 13 2006,11:01pm) | ||
uh no more then one person can have the same ip address. |
This is his wife we do share a computer.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jun. 14 2006,12:36 am
| Quote (TameThaTane @ June 13 2006,9:26pm) |
| Just more proof of Albert Lea being an inbred town. |
< from channel 6 >
| Quote |
| "The sex offenders we have in our town are the low risk sex offenders, but we know where they're at, we know what their activities are, we know where they work, know where they live and their being monitored 3 times a week. So we really do have a good handle on it," said Albert Lea Mayor Aaron Summers. |
Posted by sumpdump on Jun. 14 2006,6:08 am
Obviously there not handling "it". They should make it a huge public propaganda trial and hit him whith everything possible. Try to make the biggest example out of this creepy little bastard.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jun. 14 2006,10:28 am
What bothers me is why was this Prev camping with this kid in the first place. Parental control lacking of good judgement.
Posted by Newbie on Jun. 15 2006,5:43 pm
< Marriage legal at 12!? >What effect do you think this will have on sex offender laws in those 12 states?
Posted by TameThaTane on Jun. 15 2006,6:50 pm
Years ago marriage, sex and children was typical among underage teens. Now it's considered some type of sexual predator status.
Posted by Newbie on Jun. 15 2006,7:38 pm
| Quote (TameThaTane @ June 15 2006,5:50pm) |
| Years ago marriage, sex and children was typical among underage teens. Now it's considered some type of sexual predator status. |
Well back in those days life expectancy was much lower (40-50 yrs old).
Posted by irisheyes on Jun. 15 2006,9:28 pm
Interesting point Newbie. Never looked at it that way before.
Posted by TameThaTane on Jun. 15 2006,9:46 pm
| Quote |
| Well back in those days life expectancy was much lower (40-50 yrs old). |
Those days...70 years ago?
False. Heck most of the founding fathers lived into their 80's and 90's...AND girls mature earlier today.
And more importantly, what would life expectancy possibly have to do with sexual predator status? Do you mean in 70 years since we'll live longer that people should stay minors until age 30?
You people kill me. It's like playing with children.
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jun. 15 2006,10:29 pm
This is part of the sex offender issue that should get more reasearch:| Quote |
| Brain tumour causes uncontrollable paedophilia 10:00 21 October 2002 NewScientist.com news service Charles Choi The sudden and uncontrollable paedophilia exhibited by a 40-year-old man was caused by an egg-sized brain tumour, his doctors have told a scientific conference. And once the tumour had been removed, his sex-obsession disappeared. The cancer was located in the right lobe of the orbifrontal cortex, which is known to be tied to judgment, impulse control and social behaviour. But neurologists Russell Swerdlow and Jeffrey Burns, of the University of Virginia at Charlottesville, believe it is the first reported case linking damage to the region with paedophilia. "We're dealing with the neurology of morality here," says Swerdlow. Since the area does not affect physical health, "it's one of those areas where you could have a lot of damage and a doctor would never suspect something's wrong," he says. "He wasn't faking," says Burns. "But if someone argues that every paedophile needs a MRI, the difference in this case was that the patient had a normal history before he acquired the problem. Most paedophiles develop problems early on in life." Massage parlours The man, a schoolteacher, began secretly visiting child pornography web sites and soliciting prostitutes at massage parlours, activities he had not engaged in previously. Swerdlow says while the man felt that his new behaviour was unacceptable, "in his words, the 'pleasure principle' overrode his restraint". When the man's wife found out he had made subtle sexual advances towards young children, he was legally evicted from his house, found guilty of child molestation and medicated for paedophilia. The judge ruled that he had to pass a 12-step Sexaholics Anonymous rehabilitation program or face jail time. But the man was expelled after he failed to restrain himself from asking women at the program for sex. The evening before his prison sentencing he took himself to a hospital complaining of headache and saying he was afraid he would rape his landlady. Balance problems After he was remanded to psychiatric care, he complained of balance problems and a MRI scan revealed an egg-sized brain tumour. Further tests found the man was also unable to write or copy drawings and was unconcerned when he urinated on himself. But seven months after the tumour was removed, and after successfully completing the Sexaholics Anonymous program, the man returned home. In October 2001 he complained of headaches and secretly collected pornography once more. But after a MRI scan revealed tumour regrowth and it was removed, the behaviour again disappeared. Swerdlow suggests that physicians who see personality changes coupled with an inability to write or copy pictures may now want to consider brain disease as a possible cause. Behavioural neurologist David Rosenfield, of the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, says: "They have an interesting patient. I would wonder whether the tumour caused hormonal changes." Rosenfield thinks further research should investigate whether other problems with the orbifrontal cortex can be linked to paedophilia. Burns and Swerdlow presented their findings in New York at the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association. |
Posted by TameThaTane on Jun. 15 2006,10:55 pm
BS, simply more junk science propaganda designed to demonstrate a purely physical relationship of this behavior. This is the same thing the right wing does with gays.. Old hat.
Posted by Newbie on Jun. 16 2006,11:43 am
Most of the common laws are held over from the time when the states were first settled. That would be the 1800’s when people's life expectancy is 40-50 yrs. Life was much harder then. They had less choice in partners and less time to produce offspring. Most girls do not mentally mature earlier today. They might physically with all the environmental influences but they are not emotionally ready for serious relationships and neither are most boys.
Last time I checked 18 made you a legal adult not 12-17. I am concerned with legal adults having relationships with minors. Not a 15 and 16 yr old couple.
Posted by TameThaTane on Jun. 16 2006,12:35 pm
| Quote |
| Most girls do not mentally mature earlier today |
Are you on drugs? Listen to yourself...you're rambling like an idiot.
Posted by Botto 82 on Jun. 16 2006,12:39 pm
| Quote (TameThaTane @ June 16 2006,12:35pm) | ||
Are you on drugs? Listen to yourself...you're rambling like an idiot. |
And you're going on like some fool who can't get a date with women his own age, because they likely see through your B.S., so you have to resort to 17-year-olds.
Posted by Newbie on Jun. 16 2006,12:42 pm
| Quote (TameThaTane @ June 16 2006,11:35am) | ||
Are you on drugs? Listen to yourself...you're rambling like an idiot. |
Just because little girls are more mentally mature than you does not make them prepared for marriage.
Posted by TameThaTane on Jun. 16 2006,2:43 pm
Are you kidding? Young girls don't wanna old dude like me! LOL Sure...some young girls like money which is associated with older guys...but I've been used enough as it is...
When you were young, would you date an old woman even for money? I didn't think so...
Posted by preemptiveprevention on Jun. 16 2006,7:43 pm
Mike Hatch wants better community notification.| Quote |
| Sex offenders Hatch said he would take a strong stand on civilly committing convicted sex offenders. He said he would sign a reasonable bill that increases public notification when a predatory or sex offender moves into the community because he wants to remove any incentive for offenders to move to Minnesota from other states where there is greater notification. |
< Gubernatorial candidate Mike Hatch stops in Albert Lea >
Posted by average guy on Jun. 16 2006,9:00 pm
| Quote (preemptiveprevention @ June 16 2006,7:43pm) | ||
Mike Hatch wants better community notification.
< Gubernatorial candidate Mike Hatch stops in Albert Lea > |
Don't get me wrong, I am supporting him, but that answer seemed to be pandering.
Posted by ICU812 on Jun. 20 2006,7:46 am
| Quote |
| Sex Offenders Forced to Move Lt. Matt Allen, Forsyth County Sheriffs Office Web Editor: Kevin Rowson Last Modified: 6/19/2006 8:38:38 PM Many of Georgia’s registered sex offenders will be forced to move on by July 1. That’s because a new law takes effect that will severely restrict where they can live. In Forsyth County there are 67 registered sex offenders, according to the Forsyth County Sheriff Office. Officials there say all 67 will have to move before the first of July. Forsyth County Sheriff Office Lieutenant Matt Allen says many of the county’s registered sex offenders have contacted the sheriff office, upset about the new law. “Some of them have lived in the same location for many, many years, so they're having to leave a home they've been in for and extended period,” Allen said. The new law restricts sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a church, community park, public pool or school bus stop. There are about 7,000 bus stops in the county according to the Forsyth County School District. The Sheriff Office says that’s where many registered sex offenders will be in violation of the new law. Three people have been assigned to enforce the new law in Forsyth County. A letter will be sent to all 67 sex offenders by the end of the week, notifying them they are in violation. “After July first we'll be able to follow back up with those individuals and see which ones are in compliance and which ones have moved,” said Allen. Two registered sex offenders live near residents of the Starr Creek Forest Subdivision in north Forsyth County. One of them lives within 1,000 feet of the subdivision’s swimming pool. Another sex offender lives within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop. “My children, I don't allow them to be out here in the front yard unattended because of just the concern of somebody driving by,” said Donna Wright. Wright is the neighborhood watch liaison with the Sheriff Office. She says she’s happy the two registered sex offenders will have to move. “I know that everybody needs a place to live, but I don't think that sex offenders should be located where they have the opportunity to offend again,” she said. Under the new law, it is the responsibility of the sex offender to find out if where they choose to live is in compliance with the new law. After July 1, if they are not in compliance, they will be arrested according to the Sheriff Office. A first offense violation of the new Sex Offender Registry Law is punishable by 10 to 30 years in prison. A second offense could mean life in prison. |