Hello everyone! Thank all you so much for continuing to support and read my blog. Just a quick update......my husband is finally getting his parole hearing...the 16th of this month. Course he had to take them to court before he got a date. They claimed that they had a "discussion" about him and denied early termination and that discussion was his hearing. What a crock of BS. The law states that he has to be present to his parole hearing and it is required that he has one every 2 years. You gotta watch the parole commission...they think they are God and can do whatever they want. They even said they were exempt from any legal action....WRONG!!!!
My husband has a new parole officer and he is terrific. I know not too many people have nice things to say about PO's but this one is great! He and my husband get along very well. He's really nice and is very supportive. A 360 degree turn around from his previous PO who took the Ass Hole of the Century award.
Have a nice summer. I will try to get on here and let you all know how the hearing goes.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Monday, May 7, 2012
There is a petition that needs more signatures. They are trying to abolish the public sex offender registry. Check it out at the link below and please sign! Thank you.
http://www.change.org/petitions/abolish-the-public-sex-offender-registry#
http://www.change.org/petitions/abolish-the-public-sex-offender-registry#
Hi Everyone!!!
Been a hectic time but I do read all your comments and post each and every one, good or bad. I am taking time to thank every one for your comments. I am so surprised at the number of people who read my blog.
My husband still has not had his parole hearing, his last one was in 2010. Since then, he has had 5 polygraphs and passed every one! His PO is still a major dick but hasn't been hassling him as much lately. When he does do his surprise visits, he won't even come in anymore....Guess he doesn't want to talk to me....LOL!
I can't remember if I told you all that my husband hurt his back at his job and then the company closed down that location. At least his worker's comp and his lawyer is better than mine ever was. He is now in voc-rehab. This is where they pay you to look for a job and give you a counselor to help you with the process. He meets with his counselor once a week and fills out job search form. Has had plenty of interviews.....but nothing concrete yet.
I am only working 2- 5 hour days a week. My back is still giving me issues but learning to live with it.
We planted a garden this year. Its been fun for us....we both enjoy going out and working in the garden.
Anyway, things have been pretty good here. I was afraid when my husband had to start registering, that we were going to get a lot of grief. You know the horror stories you read; but Thank God, we have been left alone. The sheriff department comes out for a compliance visit every now and then. Under SORNA, he now has to renew his registration every 4 months but there is no grief at the Sheriff's Dept. They treat us like human beings and even have conversations with my husband. They appreciate that he doesn't give them any grief, does what he needs to do....plus the
deputy in charge of the registration knows about my husband's wrongful conviction. As far as the conviction, my husband has given up that fight for now. I mean, what can we do? All the evidence in his case was packed/stored "incorrectly" "by accident" and is now worthless. (Yea! I believe that one). In other words, all the evidence that could be used for DNA was "accidentally" destroyed. Speaking of his conviction, he was supposed to serve 30 years, got out at 20. Its been 10 years since he has been out....so he is trying to get "street credit" for the 10 years he has been on supervised parole.I figure that is why he hasn't been given a new parole hearing since they "officially" have no reason to keep him on supervised parole. Oh...I forgot to tell you....he did write to President Obama....guess what the wonderful...cough, gag...president told him? "If he were to plead guilty, then he would consider giving him amnesty." Give me a BREAK! Why would he plead guilty for something he didn't do? If he turned down 3 plea bargains 30 years ago....why would he do it now? I guess Obama will only give amnesty to illegal immigrants who are his relatives....like his aunt.
I will try real hard to be better at writing something on a monthly basis if I can't do it any sooner. Nothing new on the legal front as far as I know. No new laws trying to sneak in through the cracks....
Just remember....in November, we need to vote. Especially us women. Have you listen to most of these candidates? They are trying to take us back to cave man days... telling us what we can or can not do with our bodies. So before November, take the time to get familiar to those candidates. We just can not let those candidates into office who want to tell us what to do with our bodies, take our decisions out of our control...We have fought hard for that right! Let's not loose it this election.
Til next time! Keep those comments coming. And for all you haters out there....I did post your comments...small minded and ignorant though they were. I do not hide what the haters write. We all know they are out there. We all have had to deal with that kind of ignorance. By posting them, we can deal with them together. So if you have something to say ...please feel free to write it...it will get posted for all to read. (I can't guarantee my reply will be nice...LOL) but I will post it, un-moderated, un-edited...just as you wrote it. For all of you who need or want to join our support blog: I invite you to write in. Share your story with us. If you have had a run in with a hater...share that too. Your experience will help others.
Thanks again.
Been a hectic time but I do read all your comments and post each and every one, good or bad. I am taking time to thank every one for your comments. I am so surprised at the number of people who read my blog.
My husband still has not had his parole hearing, his last one was in 2010. Since then, he has had 5 polygraphs and passed every one! His PO is still a major dick but hasn't been hassling him as much lately. When he does do his surprise visits, he won't even come in anymore....Guess he doesn't want to talk to me....LOL!
I can't remember if I told you all that my husband hurt his back at his job and then the company closed down that location. At least his worker's comp and his lawyer is better than mine ever was. He is now in voc-rehab. This is where they pay you to look for a job and give you a counselor to help you with the process. He meets with his counselor once a week and fills out job search form. Has had plenty of interviews.....but nothing concrete yet.
I am only working 2- 5 hour days a week. My back is still giving me issues but learning to live with it.
We planted a garden this year. Its been fun for us....we both enjoy going out and working in the garden.
Anyway, things have been pretty good here. I was afraid when my husband had to start registering, that we were going to get a lot of grief. You know the horror stories you read; but Thank God, we have been left alone. The sheriff department comes out for a compliance visit every now and then. Under SORNA, he now has to renew his registration every 4 months but there is no grief at the Sheriff's Dept. They treat us like human beings and even have conversations with my husband. They appreciate that he doesn't give them any grief, does what he needs to do....plus the
deputy in charge of the registration knows about my husband's wrongful conviction. As far as the conviction, my husband has given up that fight for now. I mean, what can we do? All the evidence in his case was packed/stored "incorrectly" "by accident" and is now worthless. (Yea! I believe that one). In other words, all the evidence that could be used for DNA was "accidentally" destroyed. Speaking of his conviction, he was supposed to serve 30 years, got out at 20. Its been 10 years since he has been out....so he is trying to get "street credit" for the 10 years he has been on supervised parole.I figure that is why he hasn't been given a new parole hearing since they "officially" have no reason to keep him on supervised parole. Oh...I forgot to tell you....he did write to President Obama....guess what the wonderful...cough, gag...president told him? "If he were to plead guilty, then he would consider giving him amnesty." Give me a BREAK! Why would he plead guilty for something he didn't do? If he turned down 3 plea bargains 30 years ago....why would he do it now? I guess Obama will only give amnesty to illegal immigrants who are his relatives....like his aunt.
I will try real hard to be better at writing something on a monthly basis if I can't do it any sooner. Nothing new on the legal front as far as I know. No new laws trying to sneak in through the cracks....
Just remember....in November, we need to vote. Especially us women. Have you listen to most of these candidates? They are trying to take us back to cave man days... telling us what we can or can not do with our bodies. So before November, take the time to get familiar to those candidates. We just can not let those candidates into office who want to tell us what to do with our bodies, take our decisions out of our control...We have fought hard for that right! Let's not loose it this election.
Til next time! Keep those comments coming. And for all you haters out there....I did post your comments...small minded and ignorant though they were. I do not hide what the haters write. We all know they are out there. We all have had to deal with that kind of ignorance. By posting them, we can deal with them together. So if you have something to say ...please feel free to write it...it will get posted for all to read. (I can't guarantee my reply will be nice...LOL) but I will post it, un-moderated, un-edited...just as you wrote it. For all of you who need or want to join our support blog: I invite you to write in. Share your story with us. If you have had a run in with a hater...share that too. Your experience will help others.
Thanks again.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
GPS monitoring for sex offenders
Proposed DPSCS Regulations not the "Silver Bullet" State Legislature hopes they will be.
Convinced that GPS monitoring is the answer to the sex offender problem, the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services is proposing implementation of new regulations to the Maryland General Assembly to control sexual offenders by GPS and other measures.Currently, 23 states use GPS to monitor some sex offenders while they're on parole. The devices, outfitted on an ankle bracelet, are typically placed on offenders considered at high risk of striking again. However, the use of GPS monitoring -- embraced as a simple technological solution for tracking the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders -- is proving to be something less than a silver bullet for state and local public safety agencies.Advocates behind the DPSCS proposed regulations, moreover, make no distinction between habitual offenders at high risk of striking again, worth having their every move tracked electronically once they're out of prison, and the felons who have served their time and present no apparent threat to public safety in the eyes of the court. Just put a GPS device on all of them, DPSCS and certain state legislatures say, forever.A simple solution if one ignores that there are an estimated 600,000 registered sex offenders in the United States. Without a doubt, the proposed DPSCS regulations are symptomatic of a national tide of fear about sexual predators lurking in the bushes by the playground, at the mall, just on the other side of the elementary school fence, and skulking about on MySpace. The reality is the vast majority of registrants are not predatory, and don't pose danger to strangers, which is the only common sense reason GPS would be useful.
Understanding GPS Limitations
In an ideal environment GPS can be very accurate, but in difficult topography or in bad weather, tracking errors and signal loss can disrupt accuracy and consistency. Maryland's legislature needs to be better and more fully informed so there's not a rush to use GPS simply because they think it's like "LoJack." Indeed, GPS limitations must be understood, and it must be used correctly to be of any benefit. Satellite technology is not effective and the influence of adverse weather and other interferences with the system pose problems -- particularly with cell tower issues -- where there are certain points the GPS signal can bounce off cell phone towers and points it cannot. And this last can occur whenever an offender ventures out of the satellites' range by entering dense urban locations or indoor places like a large mall, building, stadium, or even outdoors in a canyon-like environment, like Baltimore. Simply put, you can walk into a building and you lose satellite reception. All of us have experienced this at one time or another with our own cell phones. This, of course, then results in a false alarm -- which can number in the thousands in some jurisdictions, straining manpower and casting doubt on the viability of GPS as a tracking tool for high-profile felons. Nor is this last point without merit. A 2007 legislative study in Arizona found more than 35,000 false alerts by 140 subjects wearing the GPS-monitoring devices. Conversely, in Washington state, the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs opposed legislation in 2006 to expand the use of GPS based on their experiences with faulty readings when offenders moved inside steel buildings, tunnels or outside when it was snowing. Then there's the question of how already-taxed law enforcement will be deployed to monitor all this data on hundreds of people who aren't even on parole. While the proposed DPSCS regulations require the offender to pay for the actual system -- it fails to address the costs incurred by law enforcement response. These false alarm costs would run in the tens of millions in as little as 10 years and pose an even greater deficit to the state budget.
Understanding the Crime
As a society we need to become less hysterical and more informed about sexual offenses and sexual abuse. When we demonize the offenders, we're pretty much feeding the crime. We further isolate and alienate the offenders, which can serve as a precipitating factor in some offenders' impulses to act out. We further compound this by grouping or lumping all sexual offenders together in the state registry without distinction of crime. We're so focused on the minority of offenders who seem to fit our skewed perceptions of what sexual abuse and sexual abusers should be, we fail to recognize that the crime actually occurs closer to home.
Crimes committed by sexual predators are a serious problem -- and this article doesn't mean to underplay this fact when case after case shows children are ther victims of most sex crimes. Two-thirds of the victims of sex crimes are under age 18, and 58 percent of those underage victims were under age 12, according to U.S. Department of Justice statistics. Yet the majority of those victims aren't preyed on by strangers but know their attacker. Indeed, most sexual crimes committed against children happen closer to home and involve somebody whom the victim knows and trusts, like a family member or a neighbor. In 90 percent of the cases, child victims knew their attacker. And almost half the time that person was a family member. The vast majority of offenders abuse kids whom they know and either have close relationships with the children or the children's families.But the incessant emphasis on the boogeyman, the sexual predator in the schoolyard or on the Internet, can be counterproductive, as resources to fight sexual crimes, and public perception of them, are misplaced. GPS devices only serve to fuel the hysteria that all registrants are predators. Would not the funds DPSCS wishes to spend monitoring felony sex offenders not be put to better use by law enforcement in proactive programs for offenders that aim to prevent recidivism as opposed to programs which are purely reactive once the crime has been committed?
Understanding the Deterrent Effect
The obvious question therefore is: Will wearing a GPS device make a sex offender less likely to strike again? The research is spotty, simply because no one has been wearing the devices for the decades that the new DPSCS regulations propose. However, according to U.S. Department of Justice statistics, and contrary to popular belief, sex offenders are significantly less likely than other criminals to be rearrested. Despite this, DPSCS has decided: Why should 24-hour electronic monitoring end with parole? Even after offenders have legally paid their debt to society, DPSCS still wants to track their every move, regardless of their risk for recidivism.
The most that can be said about GPS monitoring in this context, then, is it's viewed as a panacea by its advocates and will prevent future crime. It isn't and it won't simply because common sense dictates the most GPS monitoring can do is tell where an offender is or has been -- but not what they were doing or whom they were with. Thus, it will have little or no impact on preventing crimes and serve only to promote a false sense of security within the community.In sum, the proposed DPSCS regulations are yet another example of feel-good legislation to get communities to feel that actual action is being taken by the state to stem the problem. GPS monitoring and residency requirements are not going to do anything with the vast majority of offenders. The simple truth of the matter is: A person intent on committing any type of crime will do so regardless of the consequences.
Understanding the Constitutional Implications
As Maryland rushes to impose harsher penalties on sex criminals, critics -- legal and criminal analysts, and even some victims of sex crimes themselves -- state that the punitive new regulations and laws violate civil liberties and are ineffective. And while a technological fix like fastening GPS devices to former felons may make the public feel safer, it will do little to protect the children who are the victims of most sex crimes. Beyond a doubt, if the Maryland General Assembly should decide to impose the device on all felony sex offenders -- whose crimes were committed before the proposition passed -- it would run into serious constitutional problems.
As a threshold point, the ex post facto clause in both the U.S. and state constitutions means that the government cannot impose a greater punishment for a crime than was allowed when that crime was committed. Thus said, the state cannot pass a law which increases the punishment for past acts. And this last holds particularly true when applied to Tier III offenders -- where it is tantamount to giving them a life sentence. Secondly, offenders may also be able to argue that being constantly monitored on GPS also violates their Fourth Amendment right, not to be subject to unreasonable search and seizure. Slapping a GPS bracelet on someone who is not on probation or parole could be considered seizure. The government simply has no authority to take somebody off the street, who has already paid his debt to society, served his time, and force him to wear a tracking bracelet. Aside from the 4th Amendment implications of this regulation, its passage by the General Assembly would raise a number of questions about the applicability of existing laws and judicial precedent to uses of new technology, particularly those that involve geo-location information. A state law that prolonged monitoring of user movements could constitute a search and, if performed by a government entity, therefore fall under the provisions of the 4th Amendment, especially where being forced to wear the device while in the privacy of one's home could also be considered a search - and in numerous cases violating both the offender and spouse's privacy.Likewise, the proposed DPSCS regulation requiring 21 days advance written notice, with documentation, any time an offender leaves the state and to show up in person 3 business days before departure to confirm travel plans runs afoul of the Constitution's Commerce Clause by interfering with offenders engaged in interstate commerce activities. And, it need not be pointed out, such violations would serve to further implicate First Amendment as well. In sum, the proposed draconian DPSCS regulations will raise some very important issues about what the state may do to an essentially free person.
By Michael & Sandra Kennedy
Convinced that GPS monitoring is the answer to the sex offender problem, the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services is proposing implementation of new regulations to the Maryland General Assembly to control sexual offenders by GPS and other measures.Currently, 23 states use GPS to monitor some sex offenders while they're on parole. The devices, outfitted on an ankle bracelet, are typically placed on offenders considered at high risk of striking again. However, the use of GPS monitoring -- embraced as a simple technological solution for tracking the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders -- is proving to be something less than a silver bullet for state and local public safety agencies.Advocates behind the DPSCS proposed regulations, moreover, make no distinction between habitual offenders at high risk of striking again, worth having their every move tracked electronically once they're out of prison, and the felons who have served their time and present no apparent threat to public safety in the eyes of the court. Just put a GPS device on all of them, DPSCS and certain state legislatures say, forever.A simple solution if one ignores that there are an estimated 600,000 registered sex offenders in the United States. Without a doubt, the proposed DPSCS regulations are symptomatic of a national tide of fear about sexual predators lurking in the bushes by the playground, at the mall, just on the other side of the elementary school fence, and skulking about on MySpace. The reality is the vast majority of registrants are not predatory, and don't pose danger to strangers, which is the only common sense reason GPS would be useful.
Understanding GPS Limitations
In an ideal environment GPS can be very accurate, but in difficult topography or in bad weather, tracking errors and signal loss can disrupt accuracy and consistency. Maryland's legislature needs to be better and more fully informed so there's not a rush to use GPS simply because they think it's like "LoJack." Indeed, GPS limitations must be understood, and it must be used correctly to be of any benefit. Satellite technology is not effective and the influence of adverse weather and other interferences with the system pose problems -- particularly with cell tower issues -- where there are certain points the GPS signal can bounce off cell phone towers and points it cannot. And this last can occur whenever an offender ventures out of the satellites' range by entering dense urban locations or indoor places like a large mall, building, stadium, or even outdoors in a canyon-like environment, like Baltimore. Simply put, you can walk into a building and you lose satellite reception. All of us have experienced this at one time or another with our own cell phones. This, of course, then results in a false alarm -- which can number in the thousands in some jurisdictions, straining manpower and casting doubt on the viability of GPS as a tracking tool for high-profile felons. Nor is this last point without merit. A 2007 legislative study in Arizona found more than 35,000 false alerts by 140 subjects wearing the GPS-monitoring devices. Conversely, in Washington state, the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs opposed legislation in 2006 to expand the use of GPS based on their experiences with faulty readings when offenders moved inside steel buildings, tunnels or outside when it was snowing. Then there's the question of how already-taxed law enforcement will be deployed to monitor all this data on hundreds of people who aren't even on parole. While the proposed DPSCS regulations require the offender to pay for the actual system -- it fails to address the costs incurred by law enforcement response. These false alarm costs would run in the tens of millions in as little as 10 years and pose an even greater deficit to the state budget.
Understanding the Crime
As a society we need to become less hysterical and more informed about sexual offenses and sexual abuse. When we demonize the offenders, we're pretty much feeding the crime. We further isolate and alienate the offenders, which can serve as a precipitating factor in some offenders' impulses to act out. We further compound this by grouping or lumping all sexual offenders together in the state registry without distinction of crime. We're so focused on the minority of offenders who seem to fit our skewed perceptions of what sexual abuse and sexual abusers should be, we fail to recognize that the crime actually occurs closer to home.
Crimes committed by sexual predators are a serious problem -- and this article doesn't mean to underplay this fact when case after case shows children are ther victims of most sex crimes. Two-thirds of the victims of sex crimes are under age 18, and 58 percent of those underage victims were under age 12, according to U.S. Department of Justice statistics. Yet the majority of those victims aren't preyed on by strangers but know their attacker. Indeed, most sexual crimes committed against children happen closer to home and involve somebody whom the victim knows and trusts, like a family member or a neighbor. In 90 percent of the cases, child victims knew their attacker. And almost half the time that person was a family member. The vast majority of offenders abuse kids whom they know and either have close relationships with the children or the children's families.But the incessant emphasis on the boogeyman, the sexual predator in the schoolyard or on the Internet, can be counterproductive, as resources to fight sexual crimes, and public perception of them, are misplaced. GPS devices only serve to fuel the hysteria that all registrants are predators. Would not the funds DPSCS wishes to spend monitoring felony sex offenders not be put to better use by law enforcement in proactive programs for offenders that aim to prevent recidivism as opposed to programs which are purely reactive once the crime has been committed?
Understanding the Deterrent Effect
The obvious question therefore is: Will wearing a GPS device make a sex offender less likely to strike again? The research is spotty, simply because no one has been wearing the devices for the decades that the new DPSCS regulations propose. However, according to U.S. Department of Justice statistics, and contrary to popular belief, sex offenders are significantly less likely than other criminals to be rearrested. Despite this, DPSCS has decided: Why should 24-hour electronic monitoring end with parole? Even after offenders have legally paid their debt to society, DPSCS still wants to track their every move, regardless of their risk for recidivism.
The most that can be said about GPS monitoring in this context, then, is it's viewed as a panacea by its advocates and will prevent future crime. It isn't and it won't simply because common sense dictates the most GPS monitoring can do is tell where an offender is or has been -- but not what they were doing or whom they were with. Thus, it will have little or no impact on preventing crimes and serve only to promote a false sense of security within the community.In sum, the proposed DPSCS regulations are yet another example of feel-good legislation to get communities to feel that actual action is being taken by the state to stem the problem. GPS monitoring and residency requirements are not going to do anything with the vast majority of offenders. The simple truth of the matter is: A person intent on committing any type of crime will do so regardless of the consequences.
Understanding the Constitutional Implications
As Maryland rushes to impose harsher penalties on sex criminals, critics -- legal and criminal analysts, and even some victims of sex crimes themselves -- state that the punitive new regulations and laws violate civil liberties and are ineffective. And while a technological fix like fastening GPS devices to former felons may make the public feel safer, it will do little to protect the children who are the victims of most sex crimes. Beyond a doubt, if the Maryland General Assembly should decide to impose the device on all felony sex offenders -- whose crimes were committed before the proposition passed -- it would run into serious constitutional problems.
As a threshold point, the ex post facto clause in both the U.S. and state constitutions means that the government cannot impose a greater punishment for a crime than was allowed when that crime was committed. Thus said, the state cannot pass a law which increases the punishment for past acts. And this last holds particularly true when applied to Tier III offenders -- where it is tantamount to giving them a life sentence. Secondly, offenders may also be able to argue that being constantly monitored on GPS also violates their Fourth Amendment right, not to be subject to unreasonable search and seizure. Slapping a GPS bracelet on someone who is not on probation or parole could be considered seizure. The government simply has no authority to take somebody off the street, who has already paid his debt to society, served his time, and force him to wear a tracking bracelet. Aside from the 4th Amendment implications of this regulation, its passage by the General Assembly would raise a number of questions about the applicability of existing laws and judicial precedent to uses of new technology, particularly those that involve geo-location information. A state law that prolonged monitoring of user movements could constitute a search and, if performed by a government entity, therefore fall under the provisions of the 4th Amendment, especially where being forced to wear the device while in the privacy of one's home could also be considered a search - and in numerous cases violating both the offender and spouse's privacy.Likewise, the proposed DPSCS regulation requiring 21 days advance written notice, with documentation, any time an offender leaves the state and to show up in person 3 business days before departure to confirm travel plans runs afoul of the Constitution's Commerce Clause by interfering with offenders engaged in interstate commerce activities. And, it need not be pointed out, such violations would serve to further implicate First Amendment as well. In sum, the proposed draconian DPSCS regulations will raise some very important issues about what the state may do to an essentially free person.
By Michael & Sandra Kennedy
Saturday, February 19, 2011
House Bill 594 GPS Monitoring for Sex Offenders in the State of Maryland
Hi Everyone! I know I haven't written for a long time but you knew I would once I had another fight on my hands. I sent the letter below to Norm Conway State rep of Maryland and Mike Lewis, sheriff of Wicomico County. You may copy and paste my letter to use if you decide to write to your representative to let them know that you do not approve of their supporting this bill. It is a major fight for us all. I am asking everyone to get involved. If anyone out there has had any experience with the GPS monitoring, please write and let me know. I need all the ammo I can get. As always, if I use your story, I will keep you anonymous. Thanks all. God Bless and hope all is well with you.
Thank you for listening. I hope all of you decide not to support the GPS program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)