|
|
| Post Number: 51
|
preemptiveprevention 
Group: Members
Posts: 452
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
 |
Posted 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.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 52
|
repdan
justdan
Group: Members
Posts: 649
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted 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.
--------------
carpe ductem.....remember we're all in this together..I'm pull'n for you.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 53
|
repdan
justdan
Group: Members
Posts: 649
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted 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.
--------------
carpe ductem.....remember we're all in this together..I'm pull'n for you.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 54
|
repdan
justdan
Group: Members
Posts: 649
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted 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).
--------------
carpe ductem.....remember we're all in this together..I'm pull'n for you.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 55
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted 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.
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 56
|
TameThaTane
Group: Members
Posts: 6300
Joined: May 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 26 2006,9:56 am |
|
|
They don't call it the "Iowa Taliban " for nothing!
--------------
My choice is what I choose to do,
And if I'm causing no harm, it shouldn't bother you.
Your choice is who you choose to be,
And if you're causin' no harm, then you're alright with me.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 57
|
Wareagle11B
Group: Members
Posts: 1457
Joined: Mar. 2004
|
|
Posted 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.
--------------
I care not what others think of what I do, but I care very much about what I think of what I do! That is character!
Teddy Roosevelt
www.warriorlegacyfoundation.org
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 58
|
repdan
justdan
Group: Members
Posts: 649
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 26 2006,4:40 pm |
|
|
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Jan. 26 2006,4:34pm) | | 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. |
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?
--------------
carpe ductem.....remember we're all in this together..I'm pull'n for you.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 59
|
Newbie
Group: Members
Posts: 716
Joined: Mar. 2004
|
|
Posted 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?
--------------
People who don't like cats must have been mice in a previous life.
Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 60
|
Replicant
Group: Members
Posts: 1570
Joined: Dec. 2004
|
|
Posted 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?
--------------
Some drink deeply from the river of knowledge. Others only gargle. - Woody Allen
The problem is not that we have too many fools, it's that the lightning isn't distributed right. - Mark Twain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
