MOMania

By past50mom

April 21, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

Theresa, you did a good background check, but did you ask the homeowners about the neighbors, or about this particular guy? I would not have bought that house either, knowing that he had been imprisoned and had several offenses. The best thing anyone can do in their neighborhood is to get to know your neighbors, because then you can size them up for yourself. There are specific safety rules you can teach your kids when they play outside, like not going into anyone’s house, garage, or car unless you know and approve, not inviting anyone into your house without your knowledge, and if someone tells them to come with them, tell them to run home or to the nearest neighbor outside and call for help. Teach your kids that anyone, neighbor or stranger, asking for their help looking for a lost puppy may be a bad person and that they should ay no and come to you for help.

By fk

April 21, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

I think you did the right thing. However, I think the sexual predator websites give a false sense of security regarding who is living among us. Those listed on the websites are just those who have been caught and prosecuted. I know, I sound paranoid.

It’s hard to know if a child understands the concept of a stranger. So many times, we adults talk to strangers, yet we tell our children not to do so. I always told my son that he was never to go with anyone who was not on our approved list. So he would not be confused, he was only to go with me, his dad or two moms who he knew, and not their husbands because we did not want him to get confused with a friend of a friend thing. Just the moms, Mom or Dad, that’s all. I also told him that if he ever became separated from me in a public place, to go to a mother with children…and only a woman with children. The thinking was that he (hopefully) would not walk off with just any adult or kids. Thankfully, such an occasion never arose.

By nurse&mother

April 21, 2007 9:39 PM | Link to this

I don’t think that your overreacted. The sad reality is that there are sex offenders everywhere. We live on 150 acres of land that my husband’s family owns. There are two sex offenders that live within a few miles of us. It is not feasible for us to move. I don’t know what else to do but be vigilant and talk to my children. Our neighbors watch out for us particularly when they know my husband is out of town (not very often) Thankfully, we are fairly remote on our land. But it is still very scary!

It seems that the number of sex offenders keeps going up and up. I’m not sure there are many places left where you can escape them.

By nurse&mother

April 21, 2007 10:10 PM | Link to this

Interesting comment from your husband re: the real estate value. I wonder if the owners already knew about the neighbor and just wanted to keep it a secret as if they didn’t know. Maybe that is the real reason they are moving. This stinks for them because it will definitely bring down the value of the house (provided the future owner knows up front).

One other thing to note is that often times sex offenders don’t start out doing a heinous (spelling?) crime. Most times they start out doing something small to see if they can get away with it. Then they build up to something like child molestation or rape. I have heard that many child molestors who know their innocent victims, groom these children. They start out slowly to earn these kids’ trust. Then gradually, when they know they can get away with it, the offense just escalates.

So, back to topic, I don’t think that you should dismiss the fact that the man just exposed himself. This could be a rapest in the making. Obviously, it must have been pretty bad for him to have been incarcerated. Not to mention he has other occurances.

One question: Why couldn’t the officer at the County sex offender dept. give more information? Is this not a matter of public record? Do you know why past50mom? (I’m not sure what type of law you practice, but I thought you would know:) )

By past50mom

April 22, 2007 8:04 AM | Link to this

Nurse and mother, I’m a bankruptcy attorney, civil, not criminal law. If you did a written request for the information you may find out more.

By Harry

April 22, 2007 5:23 PM | Link to this

Theresa, I agree with you. I would not buy a house in a neighborhood that had a sex offender on my street.

Too many chances that who knows what could go wrong. Unfortunately it’s becoming harder and harder to find decent neighborhoods where there aren’t at least some sex offenders in the vicinity.

Good luck, Harry

By mutz

April 22, 2007 9:41 PM | Link to this

Yes, yes, capital job rooting out the sex offender.

Next question:

When you DO buy your home, what is to prevent that sex offender or another from moving two doors down? If he does, would you sell your home? Would you sell it at a loss?

By dadof3

April 22, 2007 10:18 PM | Link to this

Definition of Yuppy Scum: Equating any degree of a sex offense with an opportunity to use it as a negotiating tool.

By mom4

April 23, 2007 8:28 AM | Link to this

Teresa,I think you did the right thing,too. We heard in the news ( especially recently) about sex offenders living in neighborhoods and something happen. GOOD WORK!!!!

By Belle

April 23, 2007 8:56 AM | Link to this

I guess it depends on the crime comitted. Was it an 18yr old boy who got busted with his 16 yr old girlfriend and now get labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life because her parents wanted to make an example of him. In that case no, It would not make a difference to me. If it is someone who preys on children then you know, there is a lot of available real estate around, I’ll find another house. I’m glad to see that you didn’t immediately jump to a conclusion and you did the researh. Good Job! The idea of using it for a bargining tool is just sad.

By abc

April 23, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this

I’d say you did overreact. That it’s a sex offense is a hot-button, but suppose he was a paroled armed robber or murderer? No registry to check as readily as the sex offender ones, I suppose, but that’d cause equal pause for me. Then again, 8% of the semi truck drivers on I-285 are wanted felons. Are you going to not drive there? Sure, tell your kids to avoid the offender’s house. Tell them why, even.

By Casey

April 23, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

past50mom - nice of you to work in what type of lawyer you are. Pat, pat.

By MOT

April 23, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

Teresa, this has nothing to do with the topic. It has to do with the Prom topic Keith was doing last week. There was a mom Mandy, I/my family would be interseted in helping if she is in the area. Can you contact me and we can work it out from there? Or feel free to give Mandy my info. I know of no other way to make contact.

Thank you! MOT

By DYJ

April 23, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

I’m will Belle on this. Verifying the actual crime and doing the research was the right thing to do. Jumping to conclussions is not the right thing to do.

By Burn 'em

April 23, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

I say Theresa posts the name and address of the pervert in question on here and we all meet over at the house on Saturday at high noon. We all bring gas cans and light him up!

After all, he did his time in prison (faced man’s law) and may have begged forgiveness from his lord (God’s law). But we want blood! It’s all about what we want! Forgiveness? Bull! Finding out the rest of the story? For liberals!

Burn him so there won’t be any sinners anywhere in that neighborhood!

By Stacey

April 23, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

I agree with Belle regarding the type of sexual offense the person is convicted of for the very reason she mentioned. I’m not worried about the 18 year old convicted of having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend but I would be concerned about a pedophile living next door to my child(ren).

By InTownGal

April 23, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Good luck trying to find an area of town not “touched” by a sex offender. With a population of close to 5 million, this might prove to be a challenge. There is crime allover everyday: murder, rape, random violence, robbery, etc. How can a parent protect their children from the harshness that is society in general? Bottom line, always keep a close watch of your children, and stay clear of any adult that gives you the overall creeps! BTW, I don’t take your husbands comment as offensive, at least he tried to keep his sense of humor. House hunting is a real DRAG!

By w

April 23, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

Your point is a valid one; however, GA’s laws on offenders and the registry is strick. I have a friend who is a former offender (and yes, he went through intensive counseling and therapy to overcome his problem and it has been successful) and he went through heck trying to find a place to live AND be in compliance with the law (cannot live near a park, a pool, a school, a church (do we want these people to find Christ and turn their lives around?), etc. This is apparently a huge problem with offenders who are trying to do the right thing and stay on the registry, but every county is enforcing the law differently. What we tend to forget is that there are people out there who committed a crime, paid the price (prison and intensive counseling), and want to “stay on the right path” and be successful citizens. Instead you have a law implemented which cannot be successfully enforced, is encouraging offenders to drop off the registry and tying up YOUR police resources. Which would you prefer? The offender you know about three doors down or the one who is not on the registry and living illegally next door to you? Your call folks, think about it…….

By Becky

April 23, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

Casey, if you were paying attention to what you read, then you would know that ther reason past50mom said what type of lawyer she is,it was requested by nurse & mother. She wasn’t asking for a pat on the back from anyone…I think that Thersa did the right thing.

By ?!?!

April 23, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

Theresa, I think that you did the right thing. I would have done my homework also. I have been in a situation where I had to deal with this directly. My children’s father is a registered sex offender. He was 23 at the time and lived in a upperclass neighborhood in Cobb. He was at the community pool and met a girl who said that she was 18(actually 15 years old) just graduated high school and going to college. During their afternoon at the pool he grabbed her behind and her parents didn’t like it. They took down his tag number and later was arrested, charged, and convicted of child molestation. Yes, he was wrong and should have used better judgement, but no he shouldn’t be labeled for the rest of his life.
But this is how the statue is read.

By tc

April 23, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

Theresa, I too live in a remote isolated area & was shocked to see 3 offenders in my area under crimewatchdog.com. Sadly, you’ll probably get the same info on every property you search due to the increasing sickos’ multiplying daily. Just keep teaching your kids the “who not to talk to rule” beacause even if you do find a property without an offender nearby, chances are, one will move near you within a short time.

ABC - where did you get your statistics? Did you know that if a truck driver goes thru a weigh station without a vaild CDL on him, he loses his driving privilages/JOB for 10 years? I hardly think there are 8% of them that are wanted felons driving ALL our wants & needs around on the highway. In fact, I would venture to say it’s more like 0%…maybe you was confused with the construction workers.

By Sandy_G

April 23, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

One tip for searching the sex offender databases, don’t rely strictly on searches by zipcode. Many times, the zipcode or city is typed into the database incorrectly. Do several searches both on the zip and the city name to be sure you are getting all “hits” for your area.

Very good point about doing further research on sex offenders. If someone over the age of 18, is convicted of having sex with a girlfriend who is under 18, they are technically sex offenders, but not necessarily a danger to children. Follow up research is essential when deciding how to handle a sex offender near your home.

Also, the state of Georgia maintains a database of parolees from the State Prison system for all offenses (not just sex offences) that you can check at http://www.pap.state.ga.us/opencms/opencms/

By hang em high

April 23, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

Only through a committed campaign of vigilante justice can we keep our God-given “property values” high. But you’re gonna need a lot of rope—have you looked at that registry? Good night nurse—and that’s just the (probably small minority of) offenders who are caught and convicted. That being said, look at the actual crimes, and not that many are the 18 with the 16 year old types…it’s got to be under 16, first of all, and it has to be at least a three year age difference. Most of these guys (with stat. rape charges) are 20-25 years old and older, having sex with young teens (12, 13, 14). Pretty slimy.

By Kenneth

April 23, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

Again another person feeling secure because they did not move into a neighborhood where a SO lives. The facts are that 95% of molestations are committed by someone who is a family member or close friend of the family. Where do move to get away from them? Buy the house and be a parent.

By tc

April 23, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

Or you could just pay a friendly visit to the offender & address your concerns. Whether or not they are or are not rehabilitated, I bet he stays away from your house & kids. Let him know your keeping your eyes on him from day one.

By Cletus Snow

April 23, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

No one wants to live near a sex offender, most of us do though.The ones of us who don’t, will most likely have one move in nearby,then what?

By J

April 23, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

Well ultimately the decision is yours, but I feel as if you made a poor decision. I am speaking as a mother of 2, and wife of a Sex Offender(SO). SO’s are everywhere. If you did your research then you also know the large numbers of them that there are. Where are they to go? Where are they to live? And who’s to say that those who have done their time and paid the price are still going to prey. They may, they may not, but you are not in control of that. Do your job as a parent, educate your kids about the risks out there! Know who they are around, but don’t teach them to live in fear and prejudice. Also, as others have said, what if they have been born again??? He will bless those who bless us and curse those who curse us! Good Luck in your house hunting!

By nice neighborhood

April 23, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

Geez, where were you looking, Gwinnett?

By MP

April 23, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

The chances of a friend or family member molesting your child is much greater than a neighbor down the street. There is no perfect place to live. That being said, a trusted neighbor’s son molested my little girl. Keep in mind that with a good lawyer there are many more people out there who should have a record that don’t. You can protect your children but sometimes things happen. Learn to live life without being so worried that someone with a sexual offender charge lives a couple houses down. You probably have to worry about a tickle happy uncle before you have to worry about your neighbor.

By Sew Reap

April 23, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

Boy, is your husband a merd-y piece of work: Maybe we can use pervert’s presence to save a lousy buck. Vermin like that deserves a cat-house adjacent to a deviant!

By John Batchelor

April 23, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

I agree that using the sex offender bargaining chip when purchasing a house is low. For every indicted and convicted sex offender on the SO list there probably are three or four around your residence UNINDICTED that you don’t know about. It is your job, parents, to watch your kids and let them know about the people who are or could be around them (good and bad)in the neighborhood. Happy hunting!

By sosnet

April 23, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

Politicians want you to believe in the stranger danger myth. Fact: according to the U.S. Dept. of Justice, The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, and other experts, in about 90 percent of cases, children are abused by a family member or someone trusted by the family and first time offenders make up 95 percent of all cases.

In his new book, Failure to Protect - America’s Sexual Predator Laws and the Rise of the Preventative State, Eric S. Janus, Vice-Dean, William Mitchell College of Law; outlines why the current laws actually are doing more harm than good, and are counter productive. In speaking about laws regulating sex offenders, he states, “We are in a vicious cycle of bad policy, and need to find a way out if we want to fight sexual violence more effectively.

The overwhelming evidence and statistics, as provided by the U.S. Department of Justice, state correctional studies, local law enforcement, and treatment experts, show that residency restrictions or safety (proximity) zones have not proven to enhance public safety and in fact have let to unintended consequences for communities and the innocent family members of offenders.

At the end of the day, it is up to parents to educate themselves, and protect their children. For the sake of their future, support real solutions, don’t depend on the government or the media to do it for you. For more information, visit: sosnet.pbwiki.com

By Becky

April 23, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

Kenneth, you are right..Be a parent. I’ve checked the SO list near me & there are about 2 that live right in my subdivision. As someone else said though, these are young men (18-22) that had sex with a young woman. I don’t always think it’s the guys fault, but they are the ones that pay the price. That said, if I ever found out that anyone had molested my 2 grandbabies (family or not), I would be just like the Dad in the movie A Time to Kill..

By Sad for America

April 23, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

This is all just sad. Registration and especially the banishment laws that have arisen from it, have got to be the biggest panacea by far that we have in this country. They are a colossal joke. The problem is, the joke is on us.

These laws have not and will not protect anyone. Instead, the effects are exactly as all experts said they would be, they put children at greater risk and increase the possibility of more sexual offenses. They are ridiculously terrible social policy. Even worse, we get to pay for all of this total lack of benefits. The price tag will be surpassingly a billion dollars very soon and it is only going to continue and even grow larger. That is money that we could be using to actually help reduce sexual offenses. Of course, Georgia has many, many other areas where that money could be used too.

Do you know who is most likely to molest a child? If you don’t, please don’t comment on Registration laws or anything related to them. The person most likely to molest a child is the child’s father. That is closely followed by other relatives, then by acquaintances, mentors, coaches, etc. Over 90% of the children molested are molested by someone known to the child and usually very trusted. These are facts that anyone can verify. If you are a parent, communicate with your children, and don’t allow them to have unsupervised relationships with random adults, you have no need for a Registry. If you aren’t that type of parent then perhaps you will find Registries “useful.”

Children are in insignificant danger of sexual abuse from random strangers a few houses down the street. There are so many other types of former and active criminals living in our neighborhoods who are a much greater risk to our children than almost anyone on the Registries. That is mainly due to the pattern of offending and how it can be prevented. But we (as a society) are so unbelievable hypocritical and mindless, that we don’t even talk about those people. Let alone Register or banish them. It makes no sense.

Are we ever going to stop thinking with our emotions? Are we ever going to base our opinions and actions on facts? Are we ever going to base social policy on reality? I don’t know. I can’t believe we have gotten where we are in the direct opposition to all known facts.

The government in Georiga has passed a new law every single year, every single legislative session for the past 5 years that either creates new banishment zones, expands existing ones, or expands the class of people banished from within them. It’s not for public safety. We are at the point where the Georgia government is approaching people years after they have completed their legally prescribed sentences and forcibly moving them out of homes that they own, again and again. All for no legitimate, rational, or factual reason.

Is that right? Is it moral? Does it follow the beliefs of any legitimate religion? Is it impossible in the United States? Does it follow American ideals? Can decent people support it? The answer to all those questions is the same and we all know what it is.

By Cammi

April 23, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

I am currently looking for a house myself. For everyone that I am remotely interested in my brother hops on the computer and does,as he calls it, a “Chester” scan.

By Jonnyboy

April 23, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this

What happens when you find your dream home, with no nearby sex offenders when you move in, and a sex offender moves in a year later? Do you move? Do you force the guy to move? Or what if the non sex offender neighbor you have all the sudden gets popped for molestation?

I’m not saying you shouldn’t do the research, but it won’t keep you all that safe anyhow.

By oh yeah?

April 23, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this

Sad in America— So you think that there is nothing wrong with being a sex offender, right? You know they did have a choice.

By what the heck

April 23, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this

So, Sad In America…. You are feeling sorry for the registered sex offenders? I’m thinking you must be one.

By oh my

April 23, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

To Sad in America, more power to you. Just hope they live close to you and not me. Another bleeding heart, I see. To heck with the kids, just be nice to the sex offender. The kids have no say in the matter, the sex offender chose to do what he did.

By nurse&mother

April 23, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this

It never ceases to amaze me how some people like to keep things stirred up (hint hint Casey). If you had read through all the posts, you would have read that I mentioned that I didn’t know what kind of law past50mom practiced. She was merely telling me of the difference. Since she is a bankruptcy Lawyer she is probably not as familiar with criminal law.

By El Bubba

April 23, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

Like it or not ‘Sad’ makes some valid points. Knee-jerk reactions from politicians rarely solve social problems. I have looked up the offenders in my area. Now I have this ethical question; should I tell you where I live and drive up the property values? Would that be good for me, or you? I’ll trade my cabin in the mountains for a place worth four times as much in ATL. I’ll need a new SUV/4WD for those city streets. El Bubba

By Afraid Of Your Own Shadow

April 23, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

Your Legislature has created quite a shrill stir over this. Register the offenders…put them on the internet. Make laws so that they cannot live ANYWHERE. It’s a train-wreck in slow motion.

Guess what? The registry has dwindled to include a fraction of the offenders that it did a year ago. Guess what? NO ONE knows where they are now. Why? The whole business about “Offenders cannot live within 1,000 feet of a bus stop, swimming pool, etc etc etc”….so instead of you KNOWING where they are via the registry, many have simply vanished.

Do you feel better now? Out of sight out of mind? Is that better? I place very little stock in the notion that every one of them has moved. They have simply gone underground. Their wives now own the houses where they live. Not them. They can’t.

Terribly crafted legislation has resulted in such patchwork enforcement that NO ONE is sure what standard of the law to apply - so many counties have simply stopped.

I agree with the comments about “Yuppie scum” and the business about using that as a bargaining chip in a home purchase. Offenders are everywhere. If you don’t want to live within a mile of an offender, prepare to move to south Georgia and buy a 500 acre ranch. No place in Metro Atlanta exists that fits the above description.

Make no mistake - this is NOT a defense of offenders - but a comment on a bunch of soccer Mom/housewife/hens with nothing better to do than have a cause celebre. Supervise your own kids. It’s not the government’s job.

By dadof3

April 23, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

Yuppies like this dont want to actually parent thier children. They EXPECT governments and municipal codes and websites and daycares and nannys and safety recalls and neighborhood kids and soccer coaches and television and the internet to raise them. negotiating the price of a house based on the varying levels of SO’s, geesh! “oh it’s only exposure, gosh I bets thats worth $4500.00, we just wont let them go to that house for trick or treat”. pathetic!

By lovelyliz

April 23, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

Whether we think we can or not, the fact is that we probably are living, working and recreating about and around sex offenders.

Ditto on the fact that most abuse heaped on children is done so by family members and close friends.

By Em

April 23, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

My father is a sex offender. He abused me and my sisters. I haven’t spoken to him since 1991. Today, he lives in a nice neighborhood with lots of families. He also attends a large evangelical church with lots of families. My point is, he can find a victim anywhere, home, church, through co-workers etc. How many of you have screened all your church members (not just those who work directly with children)? How many of you have screened your co-workers to avoid striking up any office friendships that could create access to your children? My point is, sex offenders are the people you least expect. My father was a Baptist deacon and was on the School Board in my town. No one would have ever suspected him, but it was true.

By Lynette

April 23, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this

Knowledge is power! Know who lives near you and know the cars they drive. Also do not just stop at your subdivision find out all about the area around where you live. I found a sex offender with-in one mile of my home. I mad it a point to know where he loved and to know the cars that were regularly at that house. This came in handy when I caught the guy crusing the subdivision. He actually approached me out side of my home. I called 911 while he was still there. I am glad to say he is gone now.

I also found the sone of a family friend on the list! We had gone to the same church and socialized with that family. I was shocked needless to say.

If you look on the GBI Sex Offened database you can see what the offense is and there is a definition of the various offenses.

We must protect ourselves as adults also. Children are not the only prey out there.

By Matt

April 23, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this

Theresa, You are the one that scares me. It is people like you who promote these fat-a*, worthless legislators who grandstand on these offender laws. Also, you are the reason our Constitution does not mean squat. Suck it up and be a parent; if the guy served all the time he was suppose to, leave him alone. I bet the Judge did not say to him that a bunch of idiots 20yrs. down the road are going to punish you again. Before anyone writes and tell me I must not want to protect kids; keep your b****** to yourself. I have 4 kids, all college educated, and 6 grandchildren; all being protected by us.

By Lynette

April 23, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this

Many times specific detail of an offense involving a minor are not disclosed to protect the child.

By Charlie

April 23, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this

Talk about over reacting. If you take the time to find the GBI web site and to talk to the officer, stange you didn’t say what the officer said about the person. You should take the time read the US Department of Justice facts and statistics on sex offenders. You would find you are at a much lower risk from them than you are from a repeat drunk driver.

By A real parent

April 23, 2007 4:09 PM | Link to this

Amen, Matt. If we had a state full of people like you we wouldn’t be dealing with this BS. We wouldn’t be paying out the nose for it. We wouldn’t have our police wasting their time harassing people in a manner that does nothing to reduce crime in any manner but in fact does the exact opposite by exacerbating most of the major factors that contribute to sexual offending in the first place. I feel like we (Georgians) look like idiots and I’m ashamed. My God, some of us can fix this and do so much better.

By oh my

April 23, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this

Yeah, Matt, he should be harrassed the rest of his life. Sex crimes should carry a life sentence with no parole. Don’t these perverts have any control over themselves. Are they so ugly they have to force themselves on people? What aboult little kids, they may never get over being molested, so why should the perv get a pass?

By what????

April 23, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

A real parent, You should look like an idiot, because you sure sound like one.

By say that again

April 23, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

Charlie, You wag that thing at my kids, and you will draw back a nub. Keep it in your pants, pervert.

By lucky

April 23, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

Good so you did the research .and now you know so your dreams goes up in smoke because of what someone else have done,you should not be worried about your neighbor if you and your family keep to yourself and stop snooping around. Let God do his work and ask for forgiveness.for your neighbor .Who knows he probably was charge fasley or he might have gotten help ..no one is perfect and every one is here to live to gether… If that bother you why post it on the ajc you and your family should have move on there’s more than one house in the city……..

By r

April 23, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

By Greg

April 23, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this

I wouldnt choose to move in by one, but sex crimes are only one type of crimes we choose to shield our families from. Anyone check to see if a neighbor has any record? What if they haven’t been caught?! Drug trafficing will undoubtly bring bad visitors, and always a chance of violence. Its a personal thing, where do you draw the line. I wouldnt move if a perv moved in my neighborhood, butI’d skip on moving into his street if it was close vacinity. I try to live proactively, and less reactionary. Also to think all the pervs have a record, and not seeing one near you makes you safe is a fools theory.

By sosnet

April 23, 2007 4:37 PM | Link to this

First, all known empirical evidence indicates a child is in greater danger from a family member, relative, acquaintance, or someone trusted by the parents and victim. Statistics show that there is a greater chance of a child being killed or injured by a family friend, or drunk driver, than being sexually abused by the “boogie man” waiting in the bushes at schools and bus stops.

Second, the original intent of sex offender registry and community notification laws were designed for law enforcement to track the most violent and predatory offenders. The public needs to be more concerned about absconders, predators, and high risk offenders, not the negligible risk, low risk offenders, or even medium risk offenders who are working hard to comply with their court and therapy guidelines. Out of the 500,000 plus on the National Sex Offender Registry, large majorities have paid their debt to society. They are on the Registry by law, meaning they are not breaking any laws. Under our current system, law enforcement spends precious resources tracking these low risk offenders, instead of absconders, high-risk, and predators. If the registries were working, why are we seeing an 8% increase each year in the number of registrants?

According to the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, most sex offenders live in an area due to its proximity to their family or therapy provider. Chasing them away from therapist and family support network is not in the best interest of public safety.

We must have more faith in ourselves than in government to solve the problem. Citizens, communities, journalist, media personalities, and legislators should demand a National Sex Offender Public Policy Forum to address this issue. Then state and local governments can better formulate workable, cost effective laws that protect the rights of all citizens. Forums should include mental health professionals, jurist, law enforcement and corrections personnel, victims and their families, offenders and their families. The offender’s families are secondary casualties of ill-conceived laws. We also need 5 Tier Risk Level System, this would identity the people who are truly dangerous and allow for earned re-entry back into society.

Finally, we have to get past the media myths and politician lines. In lieu of fostering a fearful witch-hunt mentality for election year sound bites, legislators should step up to this societal challenge. They, along with the media, should strive to dispel the myths and create the environment for policy and subsequent legislation to succeed, creating a safe society for all children. Educate yourself, protect your children, visit http://sosnet.pbwiki.com

By Alecia

April 23, 2007 5:09 PM | Link to this

Perhaps we cannot protect our children from every perv. out there. However, it is our job to try. All eyes need to be open(stranger or not). Even check the registry to see if anyone you might know is on the list i.e. coaches, youth dir., ect. It is a great tool, but not fool proof. I do not buy into the born again B.S. or that the perv. served his/her time. Even if the majority of the offenders are usually someone close to the family, why should we leave any opportunity. If I am not mistaken just last month a child in Georgia was abducted and murdered by a convicted child molester(repeat offender), which was legally on the streets. I agree with Oh My. These people should never have the chance for parole. These people chose to do the crime, the child did not choose to be a victim. Besides, it is a know fact that most offenders are incarcerated more than once. As for property values, I always check the offender list before purchasing any property,try to buy close to a school or park, and agree that SOs have an impact on property values.

By abc

April 23, 2007 5:18 PM | Link to this

Nah, the 8% of truckers being wanted felons statistics were compiled a few years ago by random traffic stops on 285 specific to determining the amount of non-compliance among truckers for various trucking laws. They’re real.

By sosnet

April 23, 2007 5:27 PM | Link to this

Alecia failed to mention that Christopher Barrios did not have to die, but he did, why? If we look at the events of the 2006 Georgia legislative session, we can find answers.

Again, I ask the people of Georgia to LISTEN to the experts, and force their elected representatives to do the same. Within the past year, these experts have voiced their concern about the new laws, well-intentioned lawmakers are enacting. Here is what they are saying.

“What you’re doing is pushing people more underground, pushing them away from treatment and pushing them away from monitoring, you’re really not improving the safety, but you are giving people a false sense of safety.” — John Gruber, Executive Director of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers

“It may be time to do away with sex offender registration laws altogether. At the very least, the federal government should commission research to study the laws’ effectiveness. In the meantime, several changes should be made. States should differentiate between serious and non-serious offenders and only require registration of the most serious offenders. Next, public access to online sites should be dismantled, and registries should be kept at the local police stations. This would provide at least a minimal screening process to those seeking inquiries… Lastly, we should experiment with restorative justice models such as what has happened in Canada where sex offenders moving into a community meet with members of the community in a public forum facilitated by a trained mediator. This type of forum gives the community an opportunity to meet the offender face to face and express their concerns and for the offender to show the community that he is earnestly seeking to change his life.” — Rachel King, Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law, Washington, D.C.

“Though laudable in their intent, there is little evidence that recently enacted housing policies achieve their stated goals of reducing recidivistic sexual violence. In fact, there is little research at all evaluating the effectiveness of these policies. Furthermore, these policies are not evidence-based in their development or implementation, as they tend to capture the widely heterogeneous group of sex offenders rather than utilize risk assessment technology to identify those who pose a high danger to public safety.” — Jill S. Levenson, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Human Services, Lynn University

“I would rather have someone who has committed a sex offense be going to work every day, come home tired, have a sense of well-being that comes from having a regular paycheck and a safe home, as opposed to having a sex offender who has a lot of free time on his hands.” — Richard Hamill, President, New York State Alliance of Sex Offender Service Providers

“We’re not aware of any evidence that residency restrictions have prevented a child from being victimized.” — Carolyn Atwell-Davis, Director of Legislative Affairs, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

“Therapy works for these people. Let them be punished for their crimes, let them out and let them get on with their lives. Let them work. Let them have stable homes and families and let them live in peace. Harassing them, making them move and continually punishing them does far more harm than good. A sex offender in therapy with a job and a place to live is less of a threat than one that is constantly harassed.” — Robert Shilling, Detective, Crimes Against Children Division, Seattle, WA

There is not a shred of evidence tough laws and residency restrictions have saved one child. There is however, corroboration from the experts, that Sex Offender Registries and “safety zones” are doing nothing more than giving the public a false sense of security.

Again, I call for a National Sex Offender Policy Forum. Georgia can pave the way by holding a Georgia Sex Offender Policy Forum. These forums would be comprised of treatment providers, law enforcement, jurists, victims, offenders, and their families. With the recommendations from this forum, legislators will know what laws need to be written, or amended to insure the safety of our children.

Why are we all in deep denial about this problem? As long as citizens rely on uninformed politicians, the misinformed media and myths about sex offenders, all children remain at risk. We need to come to terms with our denial and seek real solutions, and we need to do it today. How many more Christopher’s, Jessica’s, Dylan’s, Megan’s, Polly’s, and Jacob’s have to die before we WAKE UP?

At the end of the day, we are all responsible; we are all involved in the safety of our families and have an investment in the outcome of this discussion. Parents educate yourself, protect your children, visit sosnet.pbwiki.com

By sosnet

April 23, 2007 5:42 PM | Link to this

Here is the REAL DEAL BREAKER:

If the Sex Offender Registries are working, why do we see a NATIONAL AVERAGE of 147% increase in the number of offenders placed on the state registries from 1998 to 2001 when the population of the country grew at about 13%? Why did the State of Washington with just a 20% increase in population, show a 993% increase in their Sex Offender Registry? Why did Alabama, with just around a 10% population increase, show a 659% increase in its Sex Offender Registry, or, Rhode Island with barely a 5% population increase show a 422% increase in its Sex Offender Registry, and Georgia with a 26% increase in population, show a 280% increase in its Sex Offender Registry?

Current registries are not working, here is why: * They are diluted with non-violent, victimless offenses (i.e., public urination, etc.) and juvenile offenders * Law enforcement spend precious resources on tracking low and no risk people, allowing absconders and higher risk to “fly under the radar” * Some states do have a three-tier system; many do not, without a plan to improve them * Some states, like Georgia, are classifying only new registrants, leaving existing ones in a high-risk classification or no classification

Most states (Georgia leads the list) have a “one size fits all” registry, this results in: * Unnecessary listing of low risk and no risk people * Offenders able to abscond with impunity * Incorrect and duplicate data * Astronomical costs to taxpayers and additional reduction in the treasury from loss of tax revenue * Loss of effectiveness to everyone

The National Registry is still a “one size fits all” system (though sold to taxpayers as a three-tier system) there are still these results: * Present registrants listed as high risk, regardless of facts * Lack of appropriations to classify current registrants * Offenders able to abscond with impunity * Incorrect and duplicate data * Loss of effectiveness to everyone

I advocate a 5 Tier Risk Level Assessment System.

A system of this type will allow: * Offenders to earn the right to return to society (Example: an offender who is initially assessed as a Predator can work toward lowering that to High-Risk, then Medium-Risk, then Low-Risk. An offender who is initially assessed as Medium-Risk can work toward Low-Risk, then No-Risk.) * A 5 Tier Risk Level System will mandate in prison and post-release therapy and community monitoring for the duration of the risk assessment * It separates risk level in an understandable fashion * Making enforcement highly efficient and community notification more understandable * It allows jurists to consider the merits of each individual case and rule appropriately * Additionally, parents (notice the onus is on the parents not the government) will know how safe their neighborhood is and are better able to educate their children who to avoid

The Five Tier Risk Level System:

PREDATOR - someone convicted with multiple victims, or someone who is not responding to therapy, or has exhibited themselves to be a danger to society or has had a second offense. The predator is put in civil commitment until they prove they are no longer a threat. Predator is required to wear a GPS monitor if released. Must pass four polygraphs per year, is on Registry, and included in banned locations for life.

HIGH-RISK - someone on probation, or parole or someone who is just being released from prison with aggravated charges, or has red flags to therapist, and has had an extra-familial victim or multiple victims. Required to wear a GPS monitor until risk level is determined to be LOW-RISK. Must pass three polygraphs per year, is on Registry, and included in banned locations for up to 15 years after successful completion of therapy.

MEDIUM-RISK - someone who is on probation, or parole, has passed polygraphs, but may continue to exhibit red flags to therapist, or someone who has had a technical violation within the past two years, or someone who has been granted probation or released from prison with a non-aggravated charge and intra-familial victim. Must pass two polygraphs per year. May be required to wear GPS monitor if deemed a higher risk to re-offend based on assessment tests, can be removed from GPS when determined risk level is lowered to LOW-RISK. Is on Registry and included in banned locations until risk level is lowered. Primary level for offenders entering the system, allows for lowering risk based on initial psychological assessment or positive results in therapy.

LOW-RISK - someone who is on probation, or parole, or supervision, with a single count non-aggravated charge and intra-familial victim, is in good standing in therapy, no failed polygraphs, and no technical violations for two years. Not required to be on Registry or included in banned locations or proximity laws.

NO-RISK - (can also be termed negligible-risk) someone who has completed their sentence and therapy successfully, had no technical violations, and is waiting for the required time on the statue to expire. Not required to be on Registry or included in banned locations or proximity laws.

Summary:

The simple fact is that children are 80 percent more likely to be abused by a family member, a friend of the family, a clergy member, teacher, coach or someone trusted by the child, than by a stranger. Their abuser is 95 percent more likely to be someone who is NOT a Registered Offender. By focusing our children’s fears on imaginary dangers, we are leading them to believe real dangers cannot hurt them. How is this making children safer?

A recent FBI report stated the problems with media myths and fear-mongering politicians; however, it seems that corporate profits and Neilsen Ratings are more important in the boardrooms and management offices of today media outlets, than the safety of children.

The media and politicians continue their misguided concept of interchangeably using words like “sex offender,” “child molester,” “pedophile,” and “predator.” Because of this confusion, children are less safe. Why do they do this?

FEAR SELLS. APPEARING TO BE TOUGH ON CRIME GETS VOTES. RUNNING A CONSTANT BARAGE OF SEX OFFENDER STORIES SELLS PAPERS AND GARNERS HIGH RATINGS.

Here is the REALITY of the matter. NOT ALL SEX OFFENDERS ARE PEDOPHILES OR PREDATORS. Only informed and rational parents can insure their children are truly safe, not the media, and certainly not the politicians. Parents should educate themselves, and then they can better protect their children, find out more at sosnet.pbwiki.com

By Renee

April 23, 2007 6:06 PM | Link to this

Hey sosnet - do you get off cutting and pasting everything you read into this blog?

BTW - Christopher Barrios might have died the very next day if he crossed the street, was in a car wreck, was in a plane crash, was playing with a gun, on and on and on and on. Get over it.

By carol corbitt

April 23, 2007 6:19 PM | Link to this

Most criminals of all kinds are never caught and with sex offenders, often not prosecuted, due to embarrassment. However, many convicted offenders are not really guilty of anything, such as the woman recently described in your paper whose offense was allowing her pregnant teenagers boyfriend to stay in her house, and the teenaged boy in prison for oral sex with a girl at a party. Anyone who depends on these lists to keep their children safe is going to have a sad awakeningl.

By sosnet

April 23, 2007 6:53 PM | Link to this

In answer to Renee, what difference does it make if I am cutting and pasting or am the original writer of these statements, which does not detract from the fact they are TRUE. One thing I have found during the past year and a half of posting to blogs, writing elected representatives and the media is that when people cannot substantiate their point of view with empirical research and statistics, sooner or later, they always stoop to character assassination. Trying to destroy my character will not make women and children any safer. Solutions will. Perhaps some are satisfied with the status quo, perhaps some are happy to believe the myths and misconceptions by the media, and politicians, perhaps some are really in favor of abandoning common sense for a perceived level of safety that is just not there. As long as one woman or child remains in danger because of unworkable and egregious laws, I will not get over it. As long as the media refuses to report this story in a fair and accurate manner, I will not get over it. As long as fear mongering by the public, politicians and the media continues to leave women and children vulnerable, I will not get over it. I hope that is OK with you.

By Jack P

April 23, 2007 7:32 PM | Link to this

Theresa, you did the right thing. This man is a serial offender. He is probably out of control and poses a risk. You would not want to live anywhere near him.

By Larry

April 23, 2007 7:54 PM | Link to this

There are so many posts already in here that this one probably won’t even be read but here goes. I am in law enforcement in Cobb County and I am here to tell you all that this is another knee jerk overreaction. The sex offender registry is overloaded with people that pose no harm to you or your family. Most of the offenders are low risk and have no business on the registry at all. Also, bear in mind that over 90% of sex offenses are NOT from strangers. They are from a family member or someone the family trusts. OVER 90% PEOPLE! Also, an offender on the registry, with a home and a job has the lowest recidivsm rate of ANY convicted felon (US Dept of Justice studies). Be more concerned people about gang bangers, repeat DUI offenders, murderers and armed robbers. You and your children are in far more danger from one of these felons than a sex offender. Remember, the offenders that are on the registry are abiding by the laws and pose little or no threat to you or your kids.

By John Doe

April 23, 2007 10:46 PM | Link to this

LMAO I find it very funny to see you give up on your “dream house” because of your irrational fear based upon lies told by politicians who want nothing more than to get your vote no matter who is harmed.

I kept picturing you in your mini van with the kids in the back, driving around listening to a tellitubbies DVD while looking for your next “dream home”.

By sosnet

April 23, 2007 11:16 PM | Link to this

To Larry, thank you, I hope everyone reads your post and it engenders him or her to connect the dots and wake up. You are saying the same thing that I have heard from LE say at Judiciary Committee hearings around the country. Unfortunately, our political leaders are apparently not listening or interested in solving this problem, only in furthering their careers. I myself am a survivor of child abuse, although not sexual, still just as traumatic if not more so due to the length of time it occurred. I can tell you that there is life after abuse, if you decide to not be a victim. I know that there is a better way to deal with this problem, through interventional therapy, and a restorative justice model. We not only can do better, we must do better. Thank you for working so hard for all the citizens of Georgia.

By Michael

April 24, 2007 1:30 AM | Link to this

Having represented sex offenders I can honestly say, please, don’t move near them. Take your noisy, crappy kids, dogs, and self-righteous ideals elsewhere.

Next, let’s not DUI offenders live within 1000 feet of bars or grocery stores that sell beer. Or within 1000 feet of car dealerships. And forgers can’t live near banks. And shoplifters can’t live within 1000 feet of stores and malls. And underage possessors of alcohol can’t live near schools, or drive a car until they are 21. Have I covered all your vices yet? Self-righteous pigs.

By Steve

April 24, 2007 7:56 AM | Link to this

On a similar note as Larry: Are there registries for felons convicted and released after murder, manslaughter, and similar? And if you behave judgemental in a first place, shouldn’t you be more concerend about those kinds of people rather than about someone who was convicted of indecent behavior, and not even molestation or rape? Indecent exposure - ever been on a beach in Europe ? Or to Cancun during Spring Break? Gimme a break.

By zzzz

April 24, 2007 8:34 AM | Link to this

Michael, you obviously don’t have children labeling them “noisy, crappy children”. Guess that’s why you represent the sex offenders. You are the crappy one. Self-righteous lawyers.

By zzzz

April 24, 2007 8:45 AM | Link to this

To Larry, your last sentence in you post “Remember, the offenders on the registry are abiding by the laws and pose little or no threat to your kids.” is probably of little comfort to the Christopher Barrios & Jessica Lundsfords, and other children & their affected families. Tell that to them. The bottom line is your statement is not true. Don’t give people a false sense of security like that. Everyone has a right to determine their own comfort level based on the public information made available.

By zzzz

April 24, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this

Thanks to those posters who have presented real plauseable solutions, such as Canada’s system & the teir system categorizing the offenders. Great ideas for changing GA’s laws.

By Don't Care

April 24, 2007 8:52 AM | Link to this

I live in Gwinnett County and have been listed on Georgia’s Sex Offender Registry (here and elsewhere) for many years. I can tell you categorically, and I know this is true of many, many other Registered people, the Registries will never prevent anyone from committing a crime. Beyond that, over the years the Registries have turned me into someone who doesn’t give a damn about this state. There has never been anything that has made want to retaliate or commit a crime as badly as it does. I have no interest in committing a sexual offense and certainly have never been interested in children, but the Registry just keeps beating on you year after year after year. And of course anyway, if I were to commit a crime, who would be so stupid as to actually do it anywhere near where he/she was Registered if he/she cared about remaining anonymous (and remember, over 90% of people who do commit sexual offenses definitely do NOT care about remaining anonymous)?

But forget all that, we’re pretekin chilren here. I just wanted to refute a statement that was made in the original blog entry. Ms. Giarrusso said that a person who works in Gwinnett’s Sex Offender Registry unit/office said that “She checks in with all the sex offenders from the county quarterly and they have to re-register each year on their birthdays.” Gwinnett County does not “check in” with all Registered people living within the county anywhere near quarterly. They are lucky if they do it once a year. Which is good, because it is a complete waste of time, money, and resources. But if the county did try to do it quarterly I would have my entire property enclosed by a fence and there would be no more “checking in”. I do expect that to be the case unless the courts control Georgia’s criminal legislators a little bit more. I expect to be living out in the country on some acreage somewhere in a “compound” that is completely enclosed and well protected.

I’ll just close by adding that Registration and all these banishment laws aren’t really doing want people would like to think they are. They are putting children in greater danger. Additionally, less and less people are going to be strictly adhering to them. It’s already happening. The public knew where everyone lived but then hysteria hit and the legislators decided it was okay to forcibly move people from their homes and prevent them from living in huge areas for the rest of their lives. That is not acceptable and again, I know many, many people who are not going to accept it. Now the public doesn’t really know where the people live and still not where they actually go and spend time, of course. Not that it actually matters anyway.

I’m going to put my rose colored glasses back on now and get back to helpin pretek chilren.

By Larry

April 24, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

zzzz, First of all Evander Couey was not registering. He was absconding. The scum that killed the poor Barrios child was on the registry for nearly 10 years before being displaced and harrassed by new laws that utlimately forced him to move in across the street from Barrios. Apparently that trailer park was a safe zone for sex offenders because Barrios’ father is also a registered sex offender. This may not be of any comfort to you or anyone else, but child abductions that involve rape/murder account for less that 1/10th of 1% of these type crimes. It rarely happens. Check the stats on how many children are killed by drunk drivers every year or on school busses with no seat belts or by non-sexual domestic abuse. These are the real killers of our children and nobody gives a damn. We in law enforcement have wasted so much time trying to keep tabs on offenders that are low risk that we have lost track of many high risk offenders. The registry does not do anything to protect our children. And banishment living zones is a joke. If someone wants to reoffend we are pretty sure they will drive more than 1000 feet to do it.

By zzzz

April 24, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this

To “Don’t Care” - Why don’t you take all of your energy you have built up and try to get the laws changed so that there can be a 5-tiered category system (as mentioned in previous blog)so you & others like you won’t have to be lumped in one category? It would take a lot of work, would it be worth it? If these laws/registries affect your life so much & your offense was so “minor”, then contact your local & representatives, write letters, gather likeminded people. Just a thought.

By nurse&mother

April 24, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this

Don’t Care If you “don’t give a damn about the state” of Georgia, then do us all a favor by moving out to another state! To all you sex offenders, I’m not sure how you all rationalize hurting innocent women and children just for your own gratification. Do you even think about how your criminal acts permenantly screw up (pun intended) someone else’s life? I’m sure in your sick twisted mind, people like you rationalize that your victim deserved to be violated. It is my hope that when you dogs are in jail, some big burly man forces you to bend over every day for him.

It sounds like you are just bitter from being caught and having your name on a registry. I think that typical behavior for a criminal to want to rebel against any rule.

By zzzz

April 24, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

What is the solution then, in your opinion? I think the offenders that hurt children with assaults, etc. should have longer/ life prison time with no chance of parole or at least a gps tracking device on their ankles. Most of these types from what I have heard, go out of prison to do the same thing over again. Most therapists say that they are never “cured”.
At the least, change the registry to a tiered system to educate everyone so that not all offenders should have to move from their homes.

By nurse&mother

April 24, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

Larry, just because the family that killed Christopher Barrios was forced to move does not give them the right to do what they did to that boy. Please don’t give a sex offender an easy out. I can hear the offenders now, “Well I had to move into that trailer park so it is the state’s fault that I tortured and killed an innocent child”.

By Will

April 24, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this

zzzz, Larry’s statement is mostly true. There are a small percentage of people on the registries who are dangerous to your children. But then again, there’s a much greater percentage of people living around you that we (insanely hypocritically) don’t even bother to register who are much more dangerous to your children. We’ve got to register people convicted of sexual offenses because that is what morally outrages us. It is crystal clear that there are plenty of people who are more dangerous but it just doesn’t make us feel as good to condemn them.

But anyway, Christopher Barrios would still be alive today if not for the truly idiotic social policy that Georgia has that includes harassing people listed on its registry. Look at the facts behind that case. It is clear.

I’ll try to be brief:

The suspect, George Edenfield, lived an uneventful, law-abiding life for around a decade prior to the Barrios incident. But then suddenly, at the whim of Georgia’s legislators, prodded on by people hysterically screaming for “tougher” (albeit mindless) laws, for no legitimate reason and in direct opposition to all known facts, it became illegal for Edenfield to live there. The government’s police approached Edenfield, told him that it was now illegal to live in his home, and told him if he didn’t get out in 10 days he will have committed a felony, for which the minimum sentence is 10 years! Edenfield did not leave his home fast enough and was arrested.

Shortly after Edenfield was arrested, he and his family were finally able to find a new home. They left their home and relocated to a trailer park (where Barrios lived). It is a certainty that he was greatly destabilized by this. It is a well known fact that Georgia’s “sex offender” banishment laws persistently and constantly aggravate many major factors that have been strongly correlated with sexual offending.

Edenfield had been doing just fine. That is unbelievable considering he was living in an illegal location within 1,000 feet of a park (that’s sarcastic, BTW). But then suddenly a forced relocation was somehow justified, another forced relocation was pending immediately after that (held off only by a pending lawsuit), and even more punishments (from the 2007 legislative session), including possible relocations, were right on the horizon beyond those.

Edenfield and his family were aware that at that EXACT moment, that very EXACT moment during which the son was arrested and they had been forcibly relocated, Georgia’s legislators were in Atlanta working on many more ways that the government would retroactively destabilize their lives, including creating more banishment zones (e.g. SB 1 and SB 249). They were working on many new, useless, illegal, retroactive punishments that had nothing to do with them and would never do anything productive for anyone. I’m certain he and his family had discussed all the constantly escalating punishments.

Then, while all of this turmoil is ongoing, Edenfield is sentenced for the felony “crime” of not moving out of his home fast enough. Literally sentenced for doing nothing. He was just nearing completion of a 10 year probation sentence. But that wasn’t just any probation, it was “sex offender” probation. Normal probation is nothing, there is little to it. But “sex offender” probation is something else. It costs a huge amount in time, money, and morale. It is designed to always keep a probationer stirred up, unstable, and on the verge of homelessness, unemployment, and prison. Edenfield was just finishing up 10 years of that. Then he was sentenced to another, new 10 year probationary period for not moving out of his once legal home.

It was not a coincidence that only 3 days after that sentencing, there was a tragedy. The Barrios family paid the price for idiotic social policy. This is exactly what expert after expert told Georgia’s legislators would occur. Experts across the entire country have been stating it for years.

An interesting twist to this case is that the father of the victim is also a person on Georgia’s registry. In any other circumstances, he is what Georgia’s legislators repeatedly refer to as a “sexual predator”. A “scumbag” who preys on innocent children. A person who must be harassed, forcibly relocated, and watched for the rest of his life. I doubt you’ll hear many of the legislators refer to him in that manner for now. Also, of course the victim was the son of a registered sex offender - why are we suddenly concerned for his fate? We don’t care about the problems of the children of registered sex offenders. If the child had been beaten up by classmates, cussed out by “adults”, or murdered by a vigilante there would have been very little outrage.

By nurse&mother

April 24, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this

Zzzz, I have absolutely no problem with a prison sentence of life without parole for rape and child molestation. I don’t even have a problem with execution, as most offenders cannot be rehabilitated. GPS monitoring is a must! I certainly don’t think that should be the case for a 19 yo boy having consensual sex with a 17 year old girl.

By Larry

April 24, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

A tiered system is exactly what is needed zzzz. When House Bill 1059 passed last year, it included a provision for ranking risk levels of offenders but our lawmakers promised no tax burden with this bill so they wanted this “ranking committee” done by volunteers. That was impossible and since there was no funding for this, it has never been done. So, here we are lumping all sex offenders into the same category. Public indecency (mooning, public urination) and consensual sex is treated the same as child rape. It just doesn’t make any sense and our lawmakers would not listen to reason when every law enforcement group under the sun told them that these new “election year laws” would cause more harm than good. Your lawmakers do not care about your children. Your law enforcement does but no one would listen to us and they still don’t listen.

By nurse&mother

April 24, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this

Once again, Will, don’t take away blame from the Edenfield’s. No one made them torture and kill an innocent boy. This was a choice. While it may be true that he had not done any criminal activity that was detected, you cannot justify that it is all the registry’s or the state’s fault for enforcing the law.

By Larry

April 24, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this

Will, just be careful not to place blame on new laws for what happened to Christopher Barrios. I understand what you are tying to say but we all know that it takes a pretty twisted, sick individual to kill a child, no matter what circumstances the killer is faced with. Now, I will agree with you on your main point. It is proven that sex offenders that are in therapy, have a stable home and a stable job and support system are not likely to reoffend. Edenfield was abiding by the laws for nearly 10 years without a single hiccup. Then the state started harassing him. Again, this does NOT excuse his actions but our lawmakers were told over and over again that not only do banishment laws protect no one, but harassing any probationer that is abiding by his or her sentence and laws aggravates a potentially volatile situation. Edenfield is a good case in point. Nobody will ever know what triggered this man that was about to come off probation but the liklihood that his recent string of harrassment by new laws had something do with it, is a pretty good bet. And nurse&mother, I never said that being forced to move gave Edenfield the “right” to kill that child. Where on earth did you get that from? Being forced to move put Edenfield across the street from that child.

By nurse&mother

April 24, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

Larry, where was Edenfield before he was being forced to relocate? Was he near an area where children congretate? If so, it could easily have been another child.

By Alecia

April 24, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this

Sosnet, It sounds like you have a personal interest in this issue(hmm). My point was that the child was murdered by a repeat offender and the family is in jail with him for covering up the crime (forgot that tid bit). You know the people you mentioned the SO should have been close to in the first place, as well as professional therapy. The issue is not if his death was pointless. If we were in a 3rd world country this man would not have been walking the street. Instead of providing expensive therapy sessions, free health care, and making sure the SO is comfortable, all at the expense of taxpayers, we should stop and think of the victim. A smarter solution for the more severe cases (rape,assault, repeat offenders, ect) would be a piece of lead, that costs less than $1(quick and economical). Do we want to wait around and take a chance on these creeps striking again? And to Don’t Care, you had a choice of whether or not to commit the crime. Quit your whining and consider your self lucky that you are able to blog. Every crime has a consequence. The victim did not have a choice. It is also unrealistic to think that a sound parent only depends on the list. It is only a supplement to the other precautions we take.

By Larry

April 24, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

nurse&mother, Edenfield was within 1000 feet of some obscure place where children congregate. I am not sure if it was a park, a school or a daycare. What I do care about is that he lived there for nearly 10 years without incident. Yes, it could have easily been another child but it nearly 10 years it wasn’t. He was abiding by the laws without incident. HB1059 put him across the street from Barrios. Edenfield should receive the death sentence but I can’t help but wonder if HB1059 did not uproot Edenfield and mercilessly harrass him, would Christopher Barrios be alive today. I think he would.

By zzzz

April 24, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

One thing is clear, HB1059 must be amended. I think most tax payers would not mind paying extra for the teired system. However, I bet there are a lot of citizens out there that would gladly volunteer to make the teired system work. I will be the first to sign up. Unfortunately, it is a long & tedious task to get a law changed but it can be done. People are scared because crimes against children seem to be happening more and more. Not to mention all of the missing children. What happened to them? GA needs to work toward a solution, again , a long tedious task. Thanks to law enforcement for doing what it can with the laws they’ve been given!!

By say that again

April 24, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

Yeah, Don’t Care, we know you don’t care or you wouldn’t be on the list to begin with. You did what you did, and you knew the punishment, so who’s fault is it??

By really don't care

April 24, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

Say that again, I was thinking the same thing—- Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

By sosnet

April 24, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

Statement by zzzz: “Most of these types from what I have heard, go out of prison to do the same thing over again. Most therapists say that they are never “cured”.

Statement by Will: “George Edenfield, lived an uneventful, law-abiding life for around a decade prior to the Barrios incident.”

Statement by nurse&mother, “as most offenders cannot be rehabilitated.”

Statements by Larry: “It is proven that sex offenders that are in therapy, have a stable home and a stable job and support system are not likely to reoffend. Edenfield was abiding by the laws for nearly 10 years without a single hiccup.” “Edenfield should receive the death sentence but I can’t help but wonder if HB1059 did not uproot Edenfield and mercilessly harrass him, would Christopher Barrios be alive today. I think he would.”

Statement by zzzz: “People are scared because crimes against children seem to be happening more and more.”

Good morning everyone, I will attempt to address theses statements and perhaps engender a little more thinking on this subject.

First the statements from zzzz, please do not go by what you heard, according to the U.S. Dept. of Justice and other studies done since 1994, sex offenders commit another crime, of any kind, at a rate of just thirteen percent, while those convicted of property theft reoffend (steal again) at an average of 75%. People convicted of drunk driving will reoffend at a rate of 51%, while a convicted murderer will reoffend at a rate of 41%. Ex-convicts with a non-sex offense charge are 87% more likely to commit a sex offense than a convicted sex offender in therapy is. As for crimes against children happening more and more, again using the Bureau of Statistics; U.S. Dept. of Justice own figures, from 1990 to 2000, sex offences declined around 20%. Since 2000, the decline has been around 36%. Reporting offences to authorities has improved, and stiffer sentences have led to this decline. Sensationalized media coverage of a handful of cases leads the public to believe otherwise.

To nurse&mother, please provide us with a resource for this statement, the fact is most offenders who successfully complete a cognitive behavioral therapy course DO NOT go on to reoffend, what’s more, the longer they remain offence free, the less likely they will reoffend. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy teaches two very important aspects, victim empathy, and taking responsibility for actions. It also teaches how to identify the cycles that lead to offending and how to avoid these and situations that can trigger the cycle mechanism. If you do not believe me, ask Dr. Gene Able or Dr. James E. Stark, they are leaders in this field and were just several of the experts who spoke to the Judiciary Committees before HB1059 and were IGNORED.

Statements by Will and Larry, thank you for pointing out that Edenfield was living OFFENCE FREE just down the street from a place that HB1059 included in the safety zones list for the previous 10 years. Did the destabilization contribute to his crime, I don’t know, only they do, however I have a hard time connecting the dots on this one and in my humble opinion, the Edenfield family made a decision to accomplish suicide by cop in the least painful manner.

Finally, to Alecia, yes, I do have a dog in the fight and so does every citizen of this country. Let’s consider your statement, “Instead of providing expensive therapy sessions, free health care, and making sure the SO is comfortable, all at the expense of taxpayers, we should stop and think of the victim.” First, the state or TAXPAYERS do not pay for therapy entirely, the offenders must pay for their own therapy, polygraphs and other tests, like risk assessment and drug screens. Sex offender treatment cost is exponentially lower than incarceration and has proven to be an effective way to monitor sex offender activity. The statistical average nationwide of incarceration is around $22,000 per year per inmate. Factor in the cost of welfare for the inmates family members, and the cost jumps to $48,000 per year. The cost for treatment and community monitoring is less than $5,000 per year per offender. It is just more fiscally responsible to treat low risk offenders different, and it preserves tax revenue for government treasuries. Second, if we can make laws that are effective and not just a knee-jerk reaction to media sensationalism then we are thinking of the victims.

Therapy works, restorative justice works, retribution drains tax dollars that could be better spent on education for young adults on appropriate boundaries etc. Google the Restore Project, it is a program in Arizona that has a ZERO percent recidivism rate. It is designed to restore the intra-familial offender back to society, remember the majority of offenders are in this category. It is more cost effective and allows Law Enforcement to concentrate on the high risk offenders.

In 2004, EIGHT (that is right 8) children died as a result of sexual abuse, 90% were at the hands of parents, caregivers, or someone the child knew. While we are fixated on the child aspect of this problem, there is a larger issue. According to the United Nations Law Enforcement Commission, adult rape in the United States is over twice as high as in other industrialized nations, while we have seen a decline in the problem, we still need to address why we have such a high rate compared to other countries. As recommended in a 1998 report (NCJ-168965) by the National Conference on Sex Offender Registries, “We need to overhaul our entire criminal justice system to better control sex offenders.” I contend it is more than a criminal justice problem and as a society, we need a National Sex Offender Policy Forum to address these issues.

By Will

April 24, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

Larry and nurse&mother, Edenfield was living within 1,000 feet of Orange Park in Brunswick, GA before it became illegal to live there and he had to move to the trailer park. Honestly, every time I say something like that I can’t get over how ridiculous these banishment laws are. Is there anyone who has taken an honest look at the effects of those laws and believed they are good? Actually go to some of these locations and stand on the streets and look at what we are talking about in reality. You would damn near have to be a fool to think the laws would have any positive effect.

nurse&mother, if I may help, I think you might be missing the point about Barrios. The problem with the law was not that it moved Edenfield near Barrios but that it severely and disastrously destabilized Edenfield. And all for no legitimate reason.

No one is saying that Edenfield is not ultimately responsible for his criminal behavior. But I’ll tell you something that I know for certain - if you back someone into a corner, push them into a caged, enclosed area, and keeping poking them with sticks, you are NOT going to get the behavior of a choir boy. Not ever. Not with anyone. And people do not understand the effects of just registration alone (even ignoring banishment). They do not appreciate how demoralizing, damaging, angering, and fear-provoking the whole system is to those people, their spouses, and their children day in and day out. Then add banishment into the mix where families are being forcibly removed from their homes. It’s a recipe for disaster.

Another factor is that there are some percentage of people on the registry who handle anger, stress, and destabilization, very, very poorly. Acting out is a coping mechanism. Apparently, Edenfield was one of those people. We should not intentionally be creating an environment that provokes and promotes those people to act out. I’m not suggesting coddling anyone but the state should strive to create an environment that helps people on its registry to reintegrate into society and NOT re-offend, instead of the opposite.

What the people on the registries did was wrong and they were severely punished for it. But this type of punishment that we are adding more and more of after the fact is counter-productive and not good for anyone. And believe it or not, in the end society is more negatively affected than the people on the registry.

By sosnet

April 24, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

Voices of the EXPERTS:

The following excerpts are a compilation of quotes from experts in Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement, and Psychology, regarding the effectiveness of proximity (residency restrictions) and registration laws.

“Therapy works for these people. Let them be punished for their crimes, let them out and let them get on with their lives. Let them work. Let them have stable homes and families and let them live in peace. Harassing them, making them move and continually punishing them does far more harm than good. A sex offender in therapy with a job and a place to live is less of a threat than one that is constantly harassed.” — Robert Shilling, Detective, Crimes Against Children Division, Seattle, WA

“If the 2,000-foot rule had been in effect 10 years ago, I can’t think of a single case from our files that would have been any different.” — Sgt. Bryce Smith, Sex Offender Registry Officer, Scott County, Iowa

“We went from knowing where about 90 percent of them were. We’re lucky if we know where 50 to 55 percent of them are now…the law created an atmosphere that these individuals can’t find a place to live.” — Sheriff Don Zeller, Linn County, Iowa

“What you’re doing is pushing people more underground, pushing them away from treatment and pushing them away from monitoring, you’re really not improving the safety, but you are giving people a false sense of safety.” — John Gruber, Executive Director of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers

“Though laudable in their intent, there is little evidence that recently enacted housing policies achieve their stated goals of reducing recidivistic sexual violence. In fact, there is little research at all evaluating the effectiveness of these policies. Furthermore, these policies are not evidence-based in their development or implementation, as they tend to capture the widely heterogeneous group of sex offenders rather than utilize risk assessment technology to identify those who pose a high danger to public safety.” — Jill S. Levenson, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Human Services, Lynn University

“The current law applies to too many offenders and I spend ‘way, way too much of my time’ trying to enforce it, I believe less than 10% of the state’s 8,000 convicted sex offenders to be high-risk and am lobbying lawmakers to focus on them” — Sgt. Gary Stansill, Sex-crimes Unit, Tulsa Police Department

“What we’re doing with sexual predator laws is creating or enlarging an exception to those constraints. We’re saying the government can take away people’s liberty … based on a prediction that somebody might be dangerous in the future.” — Eric Janus, Vice Dean, William Mitchell College of Law

“The law was well-intentioned, but we don’t see any evidence of a connection between where a person lives and where they might offend.” — Corwin R. Ritchie, Iowa County Attorneys Association

“We’re not aware of any evidence that residency restrictions have prevented a child from being victimized.” — Carolyn Atwell-Davis, Director of Legislative Affairs, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

“There is simply no evidence to suggest that residency restriction … will lead to decreases in recidivism. Rather, the evidence suggests mass migration to rural areas, decreasing their social stability and increasing their risk of recidivism [plus] a dramatic increase in offenders driven underground” — California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 2006

“The proliferation of these types of [residency] restrictions is making it more difficult for corrections to fulfill their mandate of helping offenders make a successful reentry into society.” — Charles Olney, a research associate for the Center for Sex Offender Management, U.S. Justice Department)

By really don't care

April 24, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Anyone that commits a crime against a helpless child does not deserve to live, much less live in peace. They are sick and should not be allowed to be anywhere a child might be. If they couldn’t control themselves the first time, are you willing to let them have a chance to do it again? From the comments, I can see that some people have no problem with that. These people that don’t have a problem with them should live amongst them.

By zzzz

April 24, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this

By the way,sosnet, I am going by what I have “heard” directly from the mouths of those in top ranking law enforcement that deal with this issue every day and also therapists that deal with this on a daily basis here in GA. Quote your fancy statistics all you want. Sounds like you spend quite a bit of time researching the subject. Perhaps you should do something more constructive with your time towards the issue.

By Larry

April 24, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

really don’t care: We DO live amongst them, even you! It’s just that you don’t know it unless you look it up because 95+% of them are law abiding citizens that have paid their debt and are trying to get on with their lives. We also live amongst drug dealers, murderers, armed robbers and drunk drivers but nobody cares about them and if their victims were children. Why is it that far more children are killed by drunk drivers than sex offenders but nobody cares where they live and what they are doing day to day? I’ll tell you why. Because it doesn’t make good sound bytes for politicians trying to impress voters during an election year. Of course we all could run background checks on all of our neighbors but our society has become programmed to only care where the sex offender lives even if other crimes also involve children. My job puts me in contact with sex offenders from time to time and you can look for yourself on the registry at the number of absconders since HB1059 passed. They are going underground and none of us know where they are. At least before 1059, we knew where most of them were. Now, it’s a crap shoot. Who is that protecting?

By oh yeah

April 24, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this

To really don’t care— You are so right. Anyone who commits a vile act against a child is so sick, they should just be locked away, and throw away the key. Such sickos do not need to be walking around with the general public. These bleeding heart people make me want to puke. “Ohhhhh, they won’t do it again, just give them a chance”. Not with my child. If you don’t have a problem with it, go for it.

By zzzzz

April 24, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

sosnet: You spend most of your time quoting opinions of cops and professors here while failing to show any real concern for the children affected or offer any real solutions. Perhaps that is because you have a one sided view - the view of how all of these laws affect the poor sex offender. They did the crime , they’ll do the crime and since MOST people don’t like to see women or children hurt, these criminals WILL probably be persucuted for the rest of their life in one way or another. That is a fact of life they should have considered before committing their crime. No law will protect sex offenders from public ridicule or opinion.

By Let's get the serious child abusers

April 24, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

“really don’t care”, I’m with you to some extent. You know the crime against helpless children that is my pet peeve? It doesn’t just hurt them, it ends up killing thousands of them. It does far more harm than “sex offenders” ever could. That crime is allowing children to ride around in vehicles without wearing seat belts.

I’m all for a law that punishes parents or anyone who gets in an accident with a unrestrained child in the car. I’m all for not letting those people live in peace for the rest of their lives. They should be kept away from children and really shouldn’t even be driving near children.

You said “Anyone that commits a crime against a helpless child does not deserve to live, much less in peace.” What would be the level of injury to the child required to trigger the death penalty? Would the child have to die or would a permanent disability be enough? If a person injured two children, the level of injuries would only need to be half? How about if each child sustained a major broken bone (like an arm or a leg)?

Don’t think for a second that I’m kidding. More than once I have actually seen a “mother” screaming hysterically about some “sex offender” down the street from her who is going to expose himself to her children and then watched her drive off from the meeting, onto the highway, with her children jumping around in the backseat, completely unrestrained. This is the type of “thinking” we are dealing with in this country.

By sosnet

April 24, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

really don’t care….

The problem is we are not just talking about child abusers in this thread, we are talking about the Sex Offender Registry and banishment laws. According to the United States Justice Dept. around 29 percent of sex abuse cases involve a child, that is ANYONE UNDER 18. The vast majority of cases, 71 percent, DO NOT involve a child. Of the cases that do involve a child, around 40 percent of the offenders are (or were) juveniles themselves at the time of their offence. Juveniles are the most amiable to treatment, yet we put them in the same boat as a serial child molester.

The registries are filled with people who pose NO DANGER to children. Teenage consensual sex can and does land people on the registry. Urinating behind a tree along I-20 will land someone on the registry. Shooting the moon at an opponent at a football game (harmless though tasteless joke) will land someone on the registry. Being falsely accused by a vindictive former spouse in a child custody case will land you on the registry.

At the end of the day, we all live amongst them, they are in our churches, our place of employment, and at the WalMart we shop at. There are countless people we know who just may be molesting a child and have yet to be caught. The CDC is right, this is a public policy issue first and foremost.

Let me ask, where is the outcry over the 2,000 plus children who die each year as a result of firearms. Where is the outcry over the 2,223 16 to 20 year olds who died in 2004 as a result of driving drunk, or the 2,136 children who died in 2003, as a result of drunk drivers in general. (Remember, a DUI offender has a 1 in 2 chance of recidivating.) Where is the outcry over the 1,490 children who died as a result of parental or custodial care abuse and neglect in 2004?

I believe it is just more convenient for people to demonize everyone on the sex offender registries than try to educate themselves and demand their elected representatives fix this mess.

By nurse&mother

April 24, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

Sosnet, I viewed a show on Discovery Health (I think- could be TLC). This show aired several years ago (possibly 4-5years ago). The show interviewed sex offenders. In that show it stated that within 20 years after the offense,somewhere around 90% will have committed another offense. It interviewed one man who said he “had had sex with” (the sex offender’s euphemism for raped) “old ladies, kids, babies.” The statistics on the program led me to believe that it is near impossible to rehabilitate a sex offender. As someone else put it, do you want to give them another chance? I don’t.

My solution to the problem of banishment and a register is to simply lock them up for life. Maybe that will send a message to these sinister people. Who would want to have sex with a child Or anyone else that did not want to have sex with you? There must be something truly evil in these people to have these thoughts in the first place.

If you have ever worked with women or children who have been victims of such abuse, you will see that these people will never be the same people or children they once were. I have worked with such people. I have a relative who was raped years ago. I don’t have any sympathy for these offenders. They brought all this on themselves.

By nurse&mother

April 24, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

There are lots of comments about other instances of needless child deaths. Yes, definitely something should be done reguarding firearms, drunk drivers, not buckling your child up in a car seat/seatbelt etc. That is not the topic of the blog. Maybe a topic for another day.

By Bilbo

April 24, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this

I have been reading this blog for the last couple of days and I felt like I need to chime in. About 12 years ago I got just a little too drunk at a party at an apartment complex. A few of us decided to go skinny dipping in the complex’s pool. I was 24 at the time, young, foolish and just basically stupid. There happened to be one 15 year old girl at the pool that night and her 14 year old friend. One thing led to another and I was arrested along with one other male and charged with child molestation because I was seen by these underaged girls. Two other female accomplices were also arrested. They were released and not charged but two of us were charged. It took over 2 years before we ever got in front of a judge. I was convinced by my attorney to plead to child molestation with probation as a first offender, which means I did not have to register as a sex offender. The other choice I had was to go to trial and risk prison time. I agreed to the plea.

When 1059 passed, it also stated that all 1st offenders now had to register. So now I am almost 36 years old, married with two children and I am a registered sex offender. I have had to move twice in the last 2 years. My kids are ridiculed at school and my wife is pretty close to throwing in the towel. She is shunned in our neighborhood. You see, all it says about me on the registry is that I am a child molester. I am not and I have never been a child molester. It was a stupid, drunken mistake I made over a decade ago. I am no threat to anyone’s children, yet I am treated the same as someone who abducts, rapes and kills a child.

I lost my job when I had to start registering and it has been nearly impossible to find one since then. I and many others on the registry pose no threat to anyone and are just trying to get on with our lives but the lawmakers just keep coming at us over and over again. Don’t think for a minute that every registrant that is listed as a child molester actually molested a child. You can’t treat all of us the same. There has to be some way to differentiate between actual predators and people like me.

The hate mongering here is so dreadful. Not all sex offenders are what you think they are and most of us on the registry are not a threat to your children. For G-d’s sake, please let us try to be productive members of “your” society. If not for us, for our kids and our spouses.

By sosnet

April 24, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

nurse&mother, unfortunately, talking heads on TV, regardless of the type of network or programming genre will replace the straight FACTS from the United States Department of Justice, since they are the ones your tax dollars and mine go to in order to fund research into the FACTS. Here are the FACTS from the United States Department of Justice Center for Sex Offender Management:

“Persons who commit sex offenses are not a homogeneous group, but instead fall into several different categories. As a result, research has identified significant differences in reoffense patterns from one category to another. Looking at reconviction rates alone, one large-scale analysis (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998) reported the following differences:

1) child molesters had a 13% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 37% reconviction rate for new, non-sex offenses over a five year period; and 2) rapists had a 19% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 46% reconviction rate for new, non-sexual offenses over a five year period.

Another study found reconviction rates for child molesters to be 20% and for rapists to be approximately 23% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995).

Individual characteristics of the crimes further distinguish recidivism rates. For instance, victim gender and relation to the offender have been found to impact recidivism rates. In a 1995 study, researchers found that offenders who had extrafamilial female victims had a recidivism rate of 18% and those who had extrafamilial male victims recidivated at a rate of 35%. This same study found a recidivism rate for incest offenders to be approximately 9% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995).

It is noteworthy that recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population. For example, one study of 108,580 non-sex criminals released from prisons in 11 states in 1983 found that nearly 63% were rearrested for a non-sexual felony or serious misdemeanor within three years of their release from incarceration; 47% were reconvicted; and 41% were ultimately returned to prison or jail (Bureau of Justice Statistics).”

While I will grant you the numbers may be low due to under-reporting, they do reflect the fact that the Sex Offender Registries (which is what we are talking about here) are ineffective and have become diluted with thousands of people who are NOT a risk to women and children.

In case you missed it, I am a survivor of abuse, I know many other people who are survivors of abuse, some of us choose to move on with our lives, others do not, it is how we choose to view our abuse and how we choose to cope with it.

While you may think that other forms of risk to our children are not germane to the topic here, I believe they are, because they are part of the culture of denial we face here in this country. I am not making, nor never will, make excuses for the actions of a sexual abuser. If we really want a safer society, we will alter the way we do business, becoming highly proactive, and less reactive.

Additionally, parents need to step up and demand an end to the sexualization of children by the advertising and marketing and entertainment industries. How can mothers allow their twelve-year-old daughters to dress like Paris Hilton and then expect them to act like First Lady Laura Bush, or allow post-pubescent boys to play sexually charged violent video games and expect them to act like Rev. Billy Graham?

Again, it is not my intention to shift the blame for child abuse; however, we need to recognize the overall impact of advertising, media, and excessively accommodating parents on the issue. Rational thought need to replace sensationalism for effortless profits and fear for votes. These actions will not only take courage, it will require responsible leaders and sensible citizens.

By sosnet

April 24, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

To Bilbo: thank you for your courage to speak up, I think many people do not realize that about half of all the people on the Sex Offender Registry have wives and children. The elected representatives certainly did not factor the wives, children, parents, and siblings of the people on the Sex Offender Registry when they voted for HB1059. Well, almost all of them, I do know of one Senator who did not vote for HB1059, she saw it for what it was, election year grandstanding and nothing more.

Like you, I wonder why we are stuck on stupid. Roughly, 90 persons (out of 100) who are deemed low risk of re-offence must register (some for life) as a sex offender. What has not been publicly discussed is the impact of registration on those 90% of registrants and specifically their families and children - many times (remember DOJ stats show 40%), the offender is a child, and the victim is a child as well. These victims are doubly victimized when their family or a family member is humiliated and ostracized.

I have found 39 verified cases, since 2003, of sex offenders who were murdered because of vigilante actions, six of these were young men, guilty only of consensual teenage sex.

Children who are forced to move over and over due to harassment at school each time a fellow student’s parent sends to school a stack of flyers of Daddy’s or brother’s SOR listing (though illegal in most states it is seldom prosecuted). There are countless stories of children beat up at school after school, and losing all social support structure that is so crucial for healthy development.

How can anyone look into the eyes of a child and tell them that they somehow deserve to be homeless, harassed, beaten, humiliated, stigmatized, and made a pariah for the remote chance at saving some other child? Whose children are worthy? Only those of others? On the other hand, do the children of registrants even count?

According to many here and our elected representatives, they do not.

By zzzz

April 24, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this

Sosnet, since you agree with most here that the 1059 law should differentiate between the offenders, why not take all of your knowledge and lobby to have the law amended???? It seems that having a tiered system (differentiating between the types of sexual offenses) is exactly what is needed here as well as either life sentences for certain heinous offenses and/or an ankle gps tracking device. What are your thoughts? Have Any of you registered offenders that “just made a mistake” seriously thought of trying to lobby to change the law to exclude the “just a mistake” or “peed in the bushes” type of offenses??

By nurse&mother

April 24, 2007 6:33 PM | Link to this

Sosnet, I agree with you that parents should not let their children play violent video games or dress like paris hilton. We do not watch much TV. If we do it is Discovery Health, the History Channel, TLC or the Travel Channel. We don’t watch prime time tv because of all the sexual innuendos and the language. My daughter is not allowed to wear trashy clothes like Brittany Spears wears. My son will not be allowed to play such video games when he gets older. This is a big problem with the media. People watch this stuff and think that because it is on tv it is acceptable. I try to instill values in my children.

Bilbo, I am sorry to hear your story if it is as you say it is. Sorry more for your wife and children.

By sosnet

April 24, 2007 6:53 PM | Link to this

Zzzz, a wise man once said, “To mistake a fallacy for the truth and believe in it is the most horrible thing in the world. No amount of good intentions will help then. This holds true for groups, or even the whole nation.”

Since March, 2006 I have been writing to elected representatives from Maine to California, I have spoken to the Senate Judiciary Committee and have done what I can to educate people that we as a society, are not only on a slippery slope with these egregious laws, we are in fact not making our children any safer.

In the past, we were told to be afraid of seditionists, abolitionists, pacifists, and communists. At the end of the day, there was nothing to be afraid of, just fear itself. During the communist scare of the fifties, a courageous journalist said, “There is a mental fear, which provokes others of us to see the images of witches in a neighbor’s yard and stampedes us to burn down this house. And there is a creeping fear of doubt, doubt of what we have been taught, of the validity of so many things we had long since taken for granted to be durable and unchanging. It has become more difficult than ever to distinguish black from white, good from evil, right from wrong.”

What I have noticed in my research is, we seem stuck on misapplying terms and ignoring our intelligence when it comes to this issue. Without a clear understanding of the termnology, we are hard pressed to comprehend the subject matter in an intellectual manner and quantify workable solutions.

Registrant: anyone who is on a Sex Offender Registry, regardless of charge (offence) and other mitigating factors in their case.

Sex offender: can be anyone who committed an offense, that state and now some federal laws, determine to be “sexual in nature.” This includes, urinating in public, mooning someone, consensual sex between teen-agers.

Child molester: in most states, now given to anyone who has sexual contact or has a sexual advance toward a person under 18, even teen-age consensual sex. In other words, a 17-year-old boy, who has sex with a 15-year-old girl is now charged and labeled a “child molester.”

Pedophile: someone who is attracted to a pre-pubescent child. Someone who has an attraction to a teen-ager is an Ephebophile, and it is not considered the same as pedophilia, by psychologists, unless it interferes with attraction to adults. Labeling all sex offenders as a “pedophile” misinforms parents and children, making the child less safe.

Predator: someone who obtains or tries to obtain, sexual contact with another person, in a metaphorically predatory manner. Former Congressman Mark Foley’s actions could be described as “predatory.” Nevertheless, it would be very inaccurate to describe him as a “sexually violent predator.”

Sexually Violent Predator: the Jacob Wetterling Act defines a SVP (sexually violent predator) as a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses, “mental abnormality” means a congenital or acquired condition of a person that affects the emotional or volitional capacity of the person in a manner that predisposes that person to the commission of criminal sexual acts to a degree that makes the person a menace to the health and safety of other persons.

When we ascribe “child molester”, “pedophile”, “predator” and “sexual violent predator” to all forms of sexual abuse, we dilute their meaning, rendering the terms meaningless. By allowing this confusion, we in fact make children less safe.

Since HB1059, the Sex Offender Registry and banishment laws in general are all about making children safe, why do we continue to ignore facts, misapply terms, and deny real solutions from experts in the field of therapy, law enforcement, and criminal justice.

The CDC (Center for Disease Control) has stated that sexual abuse is first and foremost a PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE before it becomes a Criminal Justice issue. Therefore, two steps must be taken right away; (1) we need to restore the sex offender registries to their original intent, that is to track ONLY the most dangerous or high-risk offenders and absconders, removing lower risk offenders. Medium risk offenders would move on or off the registry according to their Risk Assessment by therapist, and probation professionals. This WILL MAKE monitoring more efficient for law enforcement and effective for communities.

(2) We absolutely must become proactive and implement a policy of THERAPY FIRST. By preventing abuse and by intervention for potential and current (Intra-familial Only) abusers, we can virtually eliminate this public health issue. Again, to make it totally clear, this would be for intra-familial abuse only and based on a RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MODEL.

Research, scientific studies, and thousands of documented cases have proven that THERAPY WORKS! By restructuring mandatory reporting laws to allow (Intra-familial Only) abusers or people who have the potential to abuse and have not yet committed a crime (e.g. people with porn addictions, etc) to seek help, without the repercussions of prison, a lifetime on the registry, GPS monitoring, etc.; we can remove the links in the chain, or cycles of abuse.

Our FOCUS should be on THERAPY, not retribution. When we remove lower risk people from the registry, we add the needed stability to their lives for success. These steps along with others mentioned on this site should be at the forefront of a National Sex Offender Policy Forum.

By Bob White

April 24, 2007 7:19 PM | Link to this

Dear Theresa,

At this point I’m not sure you will even see this with all the other post, however you have raised such a great topic.

I see and talk with so many people that either have done something or because of their actions have been accussed of something. The problem with the Registry in the State of Georgia at this time is that it is overloaded with too many people that have either committed what is known as a 1-time touch crime or charged with a crime that did not even involve a child.

If the State of Georgia was to follow the lead that the State of Arizona has done then the people on the Registry would be cut in half if not more.

The State of Arizona and several other states have enacted a 3-teir level system that puts all Sex Offenders into 3-Risk levels.

Level 1 Offenders are not put on the registry and only level 2 and 3 are registered. Now this does not mean that a person listed as a level 1 cannot be moved back to a level 2 or 3 and be put back on the registry. Offenders listed as a level 1 still are required to register with the local Sheriff department and still required to follow all guidelines and as long as they stay out of trouble then no problems.

I know that you are very upset with finding out that a Sex Offender was living near the home that you almost purchased, however you do not mention anything about what you were planning to do if you purchased the home and a few months later a Sex Offender moved in nearby?

No one wants someone living nearby that might do harm to them or their children and I want the current laws to remain strong, however I also want persons accussed of minor charges to be removed from the registry.

I will not go into anymore detail of this matter, but I will invite you e-mail me with any questions you have about the facts of our Criminal Justice system.

Fighting Against Criminal Injustice Ministries

By sosnet

April 24, 2007 7:22 PM | Link to this

Nurse&mother, more parents should be like you, and then we would not need government intrusion into our lives. As a society, we seem to be more interested in how bad a 17-year-old kid sings, or the poor saga of an ex-playmate who did not contribute, from what I can tell, much to society. There are 8 common sense things parents can do to insure their children are safe. I will not take credit for all of these ideas; I will however take credit for compiling them for parents:

“I know what you are trying to do is wrong, and if you continue, I WILL tell my parents, the police or someone who will listen and you will go to jail.”

For more information, visit the Jacob Wetterling Foundation web site, or by calling 800-325-HOPE.

By the way, Patty Wetterling, Jacob’s mother is a strong advocate for restructuring our sex offender registries and passing laws that offer real solutions. Good luck to you and your family.

By Pat Doyle

April 25, 2007 7:19 AM | Link to this

Once again the media did a good job to stir up this issue. There is so much more involved in this issue. How many of you mothers read this article and went directly to the website they offered in the article? Did you believe that all those listed are the next Jessica or Meghan childkiller? A child has a higher chance of being killed by a drunk driver. I used to think like many others but when you know someone and you start looking into how the media and lawmakers are driving fear into the public it is sickening. The registry is bloated with individuals that are not a threat to children. Lawmakers continue to amend laws that bloat the registry even more. For the one comment that the mother made that the registry continues to grow this is why, not because this crime is increasing. I do not know how many of you read the story of Bilbo. This is unjust. He is forced to have a date of conviction of the GBI website even though the First Offender plea he agreed to with the State states that no judgement of guilt will be placed by the courts at this time. If you talk to any lawyer they will agree that in reality Bilbo is not convicted. The lawmakers had to amend this law last year to say if the individual is convicted or took the First Offender plea. If Bilbo does not register than he will become another statistic that reports a sex offender has reoffended and will receive a minimum 10 year sentencing and a felon on his record. The public needs to understand how pro registry groups can twist statistics around. I urge the public to demand from the lawmakers to fix the registry to the original intent is was intended. The truly dangerous offenders.

By sosnet

April 25, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

To Pat Doyle: You are so right about the First Offender issue, essentially the General Assembly has usurped their authority over the Judicial branch of government and voided the agreements these people made in good faith with their trial judge, and the county prosecutors.

Why would they do such a thing? I believe the answer can be found in the fact that local governments (counties and cities) get Federal money to maintain the Registry, and by extension since they don’t have to rely on state funding, the state benefits. Look at the Byrne Grant and the LEBG (Law Enforcement Block Grants) Program’s which mandates states increase their registries or lose around 20% of their funding.

We now have state and local governments highly motivated to add victimless crimes to their registries. Ask yourself this question, how does public urination or shooting the moon make someone a threat to children? How does charging a 17 year old teen boy as a child molester for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend (regardless of how “wrong” we want to believe it is) beneficial for society?

I am willing to bet that many of the state legislators had sex with their girlfriends when they were 17 and what’s more, I am willing to bet many of them had sex with girls that were two to three years younger than they were.

Now they want to punish this generation for the same thing they did, only because it provides money and it sure is an election year vote getter.

What is really striking is that most people believe the talking heads on TV in place of experts like Dr. Gene Able or Law Enforcement. I contend we are in deep denial about this problem and until we drop our oars and get out of “da nile” this problem will not get solved and women and children will continue to be victimized.

Thank you for bringing up the First Offender issue, it is one every citizen of Georgia should be up in arms about. We are quickly loosing our checks and balances and with that, we will lose our democracy. Funny, we are sending our children around the world to bring democracy to others while we are giving it away here, go figure.

By george

April 25, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

Theresa, there have been many posts here so you may not read this but I have got to post anyway. I think you did right by searching the registry for any sex offenders that may be living nearby. However, your reaction to the information you obtained I don’t agree with. Being informed as I am about the registries, I do know that there is not enough information on each person’s registry in order to inform each concerned citizen if the registrant poses a real threat to children or even adults in the area or not. Since the GBI and other websites do not lists risk levels for each offender, it is up to each individual who may find themselves in your shoes to find out as much information as possible about the offender and the offenses instead of reacting to fear mongering. Granted, you did try to find out information through law enforcement organizations but you shouldn’t have stopped there, especially when it was told to you that there were other cases pending. Some, or even all of this person’s charges could be false allegations. Yes, that is possible! I didn’t see anywhere in your story where you went to the offender in question and ask the person some pointedly questions that could have given you great insight in to whether or not your children would have been in danger if you had moved in. Like it or not, this situation will more than likely come up again since there are more than 11,000 registered sex offenders in Georgia and probably half that many unreported or undetected that are not on the registry because of having not been caught. Most of society wants to kill the sex offender because it involved a child or rape of a woman. But the legislators can not make this a law because of ex post facto, nor can they lock them all up for the same reasons. So, since society can not legally kill or lock up all sex offenders in Georgia, we, as a society, need to educate ourselves about offenders and their risk levels and act accordingly. If I didn’t have a choice of who lived in my neighborhood ( and most of us don’t ), I would much rather have a sex offender who is in sex offender treatment, monitored by mandatory polygraphs, and complying with all state requirements, such as the registry, than someone who was absconding or not responding to treatment, regardless of the charges. Sexually offending a child or raping of anyone is very serious and the offender should be punished severely. But the punishment should fit the crime. As is, all sex offenders are punished the same, and treated the same by individuals such as yourself who react to the “stranger danger myth” instead of first getting all of the facts.

By Hank Spinnler

April 25, 2007 8:35 PM | Link to this

By dadof3

April 22, 2007 10:18 PM | Link to this

Definition of Yuppy Scum: Equating any degree of a sex offense with an opportunity to use it as a negotiating tool.

I agree with this guy. You were digging in the dirt just to find a better deal on this home. What about when you sell your home? Chances are you’ve got something in your own neighborhood or on your own street like a meth lab, grow house, sex offender or some other criminal. Like Johnny Mathis once sang “Chances Are”

By Hank Spinnler

April 25, 2007 8:39 PM | Link to this

By dadof3

April 22, 2007 10:18 PM | Link to this

Definition of Yuppy Scum: Equating any degree of a sex offense with an opportunity to use it as a negotiating tool.

I agree with dadof3. You used it as a negotiating tool to try to negotiate a better deal. When you sell your house, what might they dig up about our neighborhood or your street? Perhaps a meth lab bust, crack house, village idiot or sex offender.

By Hank Spinnler

April 25, 2007 8:42 PM | Link to this

By dadof3

April 22, 2007 10:18 PM | Link to this

Definition of Yuppy Scum: Equating any degree of a sex offense with an opportunity to use it as a negotiating tool.

This thing’s a pain in the a$$ to work, but dadof3 said it best. What will they dig up on your street when you go to sell? Is your house perfect?

By sosnet

April 26, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

When Megan’s and Jacob’s Laws were originally passed, there was a decided lack of empirical evidence to support or question the effectiveness of these laws. We now find state and local governments, for easy political gain and against the advice of experts in criminal justice, behavior therapy, and law enforcement, attempting to a write harsher law than their neighboring cities or states.

This trend is now banishing an entire class of people as we find new laws that exclude EVERYONE on the registries, regardless of charge, from living within in these supposed safety zones.

The overwhelming evidence and statistics, as provided by the U.S. Department of Justice, state correctional studies, local law enforcement, and treatment experts, show that residency restrictions or safety (proximity) zones have not proven to enhance public safety and in fact have let to unintended consequences for communities and the innocent family members of offenders.

I ask you to consider the following: (1) with regards to recidivism, DOJ and other studies done since 1994, shows sex offenders commit another crime, of any kind, at a rate of just thirteen percent, while those convicted of property theft reoffend at an average of 75%. People convicted of drunk driving will reoffend at a rate of 51%, while a convicted murderer will reoffend at a rate of 41%. Ex-convicts with a non-sex offense charge are 87% more likely to commit a sex offense than a convicted sex offender in therapy is. (2) The FBI-UCR, National Crime Victimization Survey reveals that only 23% of sex crimes are against someone under 18; and the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that predators represent around three percent of all sex offenders and child killers are less than one percent of all offenders. (3) Over 40% of sex crimes committed against someone under 18 are by a juvenile; most are consensual sex by teenagers, others are older siblings acting out against a relative. Additionally, a study by the DOJ showed the 19% of online teenagers who were solicited for sex, were done so by other teenagers around 70% of the time, NOT adults.

In a statement regarding the effectiveness of Iowa’s Sex Offender Registry and Proximity laws, Sgt. Bryce Smith, who has charge of monitoring the registry in Scott County (Iowa) said; “If the 2,000-foot rule had been in effect 10 years ago, I can’t think of a single case from our files that would have been any different.”

Recognize these laws only encourage offenders and former offenders to abscond to keep their jobs or their families together. Victims, spouses, and parents of intra-familial offenders will be reluctant to report abuse, fearing decades or a lifetime on the registries and progressively more repressive banishment laws. Please remember, the victims and offenders of unreported intra-familial offenses, who do not receive therapy, create opportunities for more offenses and victims. This will not create a safer society, and indeed, has the opposite affect.

I invite you to read The Impact of Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders and Correctional Management Practices: A Literature Review; by Marcus Nieto, Senior Research Specialist and Professor David Jung, Public Law Research Institute, Hastings Law School. Additionally, pick up a copy of Failure to Protect - America’s Sexual Predator Laws and the Rise of the Preventative State, by Eric S. Janus, Vice-Dean, William Mitchell College of Law.

We must move toward a Restorative Justice model, the retributive justice paradigm, the legislative rule over our courts must end and the privatization of our prison system are failing our children and families. We can and must do better. If we do nothing, we surrender our future. Learn more, educate yourself, protect your children, visit sosnet.pbwiki.com