I firmly believe we have become so entrenched in the idea as a nation of predators and sexual offenders it is all we see.  We don't want to admit that in many cases parents aren't supervising their children the way they should and some young people are lying and ruining lives.  Then there are the people that are dating or think they are dating and find out what they have done, usually by taking their relationship to a sexual relationship, is illegal and one of them ends up a Sexual Offender and maybe even goes to prison.  Maybe we need to post copies of our sex laws in the Middle and High Schools in every school everywhere and post them in all the laundromats and movie theaters so all the young people know what they are.  I wonder if that would help.   My friends who are parents and grandparents say this will not help when porn is only a mouse click or a channel change away. 

One of my friends is the Grandmother of a young person who started a sexual relationship at a very young age.  The boy in the relationship was 13 years old.  The girl was 14 years old.  The parents of the girl tried everything they could think of to get her to quit seeing the boy, or to quit having a sexual relationship with the boy.  They tried grounding, counseling, having her escorted everywhere she went and nothing worked.  She was determined to continue having sex with the boy.  The mother was really worried about pregnancy at her age, and disease.  The mother finally gave up and put the girl on birth control.  Both the boy and the girl have since moved on to new partners.  

An interesting question here is:  Who would have been arrested in this situation?

I heard an attorney recently state that the people of the United States tend to confuse retribution with justice.  How much emotional damage do you think strict or complete liability laws create in young people who were involved in a relationship, especially when one or both of the sexually involved is arrested and goes to prison.  But they don't have to go to prison to have their lives ruined.  Being put on a Sexual Offender list will ruin these people.  Even when one person in the relationship is several years older than the other.  

  Retribution does not create justice.  

Whose retribution is it?  A parent who decides when they find out their child is having a sexual relationship that they don't want their child to be in that kind of relationship?

And look what has happened by the United States letting a man put his retribution into law.

I am so very sorry for the Walsh Family regarding their son Adam.  But this whole situation of allowing a citizen to make a law is ludicrous.  We have allowed a wealthy man, John Walsh, in 1981 to launch such a complicated media frenzy the size of which makes my head spin, and then make laws based on who he thinks killed his son.  The fact is, he doesn't know who killed his son.  And he doesn't know that his son was sexually molested.  The boys body was never found, so how would anybody know that the child was molested!  The person who supposedly admitted to the crime was of such a personality and it was found that he indeed was not involved with the killings he admitted to.

Adam Walsh Murder Solved??? 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/16/national/main4671819.shtml

Who killed Adam Walsh?  Nobody will probably ever know.    

Did Dahmer Kill "Most Wanted" Host's Son?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/08/national/main2449562.shtml

Dahlmer could have murdered Adam Walsh.  Neither of these men were sexual offenders.  They were Serial Murderers.  This is not the same thing as a Sexual Offender.

Read about this Serial Murderer. 

Ottis Toole From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.wikipedia.org/

Click on English

Put Otis Toole in the Search plane

Click on: 

We have allowed a man of wealth to gain influence and lobbying power and ruin countless lives on the premise that it was a Sexual Offender that killed his son, that Sexual Offenses are the worst possible kind of offense.  Murder in my opinion is the worst kind of offense and the worst of these are serial murderers, because they often are every kind Offender rolled up into one.  Mr. Walsh would lead us to believe that all Sexual Offenders are Murderers which is so far from the truth that it is frightening.  He would also have us believe that Sexual Offenders are not treatable and that they are all re-offenders which is also not backed up by fact.  In fact, the opposite is backed up by statistics. There is a very low recidivism rate in Sexual Offenders. 

Branding Former Sex Offenders:    November 28, 2003  "A recent Justice Department report suggests that state sex-offender laws may need revisiting. The study finds former sex offenders are much less likely to be rearrested than other former criminals after their release from prison."  Please see:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1128/p10s02-comv.html

 The rate of Sex Offenders in a study released in 1986 from the Department of Corrections in the State of New York stated that "After nine years of follow-up, 49% of the sex offenders returned to the Department for a violation of Parole or for committing a new crime. 

The rate of return for committing a new sex crime was 6%.  Only 6%.

If the recidivist rate for committing a new sex crime has changed from 1986 to the present, perhaps we should be asking WHY has it changed!  Has the treatment method changed?  What is going on here?  Obviously, what has been released recently on the news with idiots screaming Sexual Offenders cannot be treated.... is FALSE. 

"The immense cost of Labeling people Sex Offenders"

http://angryoffender.com/cost_of_registration.php

After reading the above, can you in good conscience say that the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, is necessary or that it should have been passed into law?

Realize that if a person relieves his/her bladder at the side of the road in Kansas it is "lewd and lascivious behavior" and they have to register as a sex offender.  If you are walking naked in your own home and somebody is going through your yard and sees you naked you can now be charged, taken to court, and if you are found guilty you will have to sign as a sex offender.  Especially if the person that sees you is a minor.   The person convicted of "lewd and lascivious behavior" or the person walking naked in his/her own home will have to sign the same register, attend the same counseling, etc. with the same people that physically injured and murdered.  This absolutely makes no sense.    Murderers have a defense, and when they get out of prison, and/or their parole is completed, they have paid their debt to society and it is over, they are done.  If they do re-offend they are then recharged.

 The Walsh family initiated a campaign for several years to get people to think that "we have to protect our young people."  All Sex Offenses are equal.  I guess I am going to have to change this to All Offenses are equal.  The problem is that they have tunnel vision and aren't seeing the whole picture which is exactly what people tend to do when they are in pain. Some of these cases in my opinion should not even be considered offenses.  Especially when the young person or persons or both parties has said yes to a sexual relationship, or if there is no force or coercion involved.  Yes means yes; at least yes should mean yes.  Young people tend to have fascination with sex.  In my day and age we used to sneak the National Geographic Magazine to see the pictures of people in other countries that did not wear clothes.

The point here is that civilized countries don't let the victim's relatives choose the punishment.  OOps!!  The victim's relatives are being allowed to choose the punishment in these cases and to make laws. In fact, at least in the United States the legal system has gotten an unhealthy interest in Justice for the Victims family.  It started with victims and their families being allowed to go to court and rage at the supposed perpetrator as a means for closure.  Studies now indicate that it does not help the families with closure.  The only thing that really helps with closure is time and perhaps counseling when it is necessary. 

It is a shame when a public citizen can make such a serious policy as this and ruin the lives of so many people in this country no matter how severe his heartache and on a premise that was not even true.   

Imagine the consequences of this.

How are "sex offenders" ever going to become productive members of society again?  What happens when a person cannot make a living?  Look to your history.  We already know what happens when a person cannot make a living.

Now I am really angry that My Country and My Government has allowed something like this to happen.  I am wondering if this isn't another form of "give the people someone to hate."  An idea that was fostered by Hitler when he advocated hating the Jews.  We have seen it recently in our country regarding "hate mentally ill people," people in the United States used to treat Mentally Ill people in much the same manner as we now treat sex offenders, or in other words, hate anything that is not the norm.   

First of all, The Adam Walsh Act should not have been put into law.  But since it was, at the very least it should be revised to differentiate between the types and circumstances surrounding cases, not just according to the title of the charge, and the requirement to register on a Federal Sexual Offender List.  Most of the time that does not give a clear view of what actually happened. 

Most of us do not have enough money, influence, or lobbying power to launch such a complicated media frenzy as the Walsh's have launched.  Do you really think that "To Catch A Predator" only took a few minutes?  This kind of entrapment takes months to set the trap and reel in the "predator." Entrapment used to be illegal.  Any indication of entrapment and the case would have been thrown out of court.

I worked 3 years in the locked ward of a mental health facility in the early 1970's.  I learned that a huge part of the population walks a very thin line between sanity and insanity.  As an Aid I took care of people that I would never have guessed had emotional problems.  Sometimes it took what I felt was a very insignificant word or action to cause a break in a persons mental health.  This is why I have to wonder about all this entrapment.  From my experience working in the mental health hospital I have to wonder just how many of these people would never have offended if there had not been any impersonation and entrapment.  

Do you really think "Law and Order" is an actual depiction of law enforcement?  I have a degree in Criminal Justice and 16 years working in the field.  These things aren't accurate.  I quit watching Law and Order when I saw a special on it where the writer of the show stated this was an actual depiction of how things work.  It is not.  It is fiction.  However, many of us believe everything we see on television or read in the newspaper.  To Catch a Predator, doesn't show you or tell you what kinds of things were said to these "predators" that enticed them to try to meet the person portrayed as a "victim".  This is definitely making a good case regarding Parents, monitor your childrens' internet use!   They are children and children do not always make good decisions. 

We expect our Police and Investigators to be honest in their dealings with citizens.  As of the year 2000 the Criminal Justice and Administration of Justice text books estimated that eighteen to twenty eight percent of all U.S. law enforcement officers were seriously involved in illegal activity.  From what I see I would guesstimate that percentage is much higher as of 2010. Example:  Greensburg, KS, The looters after that destructive tornado were law enforcement and reserves,  the Chief of Police, **** was arrested for molesting children.  The X-police Chief in **** was arrested for battery, The X-police Chief of **** was arrested for possession and sales of narcotics, and the list goes on. Yes, if necessary I can prove these.  They were in the newspaper in my state.  After the Greensburg, Ks, statement the instances were all in one state.  What about the other 49 states?

In Swirl of Paterson Scandal, 2nd State Police Superintendent Quits

 The acting superintendent of the New York State Police announced his retirement Tuesday, becoming the second senior agency official to leave office since it was revealed that the agency had intervened in a domestic abuse case involving a top aide to Gov. David A. Paterson.

Everyone is Innocent until proven guilty

The first thing I was taught when I went through the Law Enforcement Academy was that Officers were not to make judgments.  We were told the United States has court systems specifically set up to make those judgments and pass sentence.  If we wanted to be involved in that we should become a judge or an attorney, not a law enforcement officer.

Just because someone is arrested it does not mean he is guilty. We were given several examples in law enforcement academy of people who were arrested and were not guilty, they were only in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 "Everyone is Innocent until proven guilty."

No one should be considered guilty until proven innocent! 

Please take a moment to think about this. 

Wrongful conviction, Not a Sex Offender after all.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/28/eveningnews/main6342150.shtml

The youngest person registered as a sex offender is twelve years old.

This may change soon:

11-year-old Iowa Boy Charged with Sexual Abuse

http://www.ksfy.com/news/local/85722377.html#commentbox

 An Article that was written in the Argus Leader by Megan Luther: ArgusLeader.com Sioux Falls, South Dakota Business Journal on January 10, 2010.  This is one state that has "strict liability" regarding anyone charged with a sexual offense.  It is not surprising the state has so many sexual offenders.  At least they are now thinking about this situation.  Maybe it is time they looked at a very outdated strict liability sentencing. 

They should also hold their young people accountable regardless of their age or gender.  Or maybe they should hold the parents accountable.

 This girl contacted the young man on a social networking site.  I reiterate; she contacted him.  He had his social networking profile set so that she shouldn't have been able to contact him if she was under the age of (18) eighteen if she had put accurate information on her profile.  She would have had to have his email address.  This young man’s mother had viewed her web site and saw nothing to suggest she was less than eighteen years of age.  This girl talked to the young man’s father on the telephone introducing herself with a fictitious name and she talked to his father for several minutes.   The girl lived in a state other than the state the young man lived in and he drove to visit her.  She even paid for some of the meals they shared when he visited.  After dating this girl a few times the young man had called his family and told them he was going to pick the girl up for the week-end so she could see where he lived.  She had told him she had the week-end off work and he was going to take her back to her home the coming Sunday.  She paid for the gas for the trip.

 That same week end his parents received a telephone call from the young man notifying them that he had been arrested and charged with Count I: Sexual Intercourse without Consent.  He had been arrested in a local restaurant where he and the girl were having dinner.  This young man’s family and his friends, were horrified at his arrest and at finding out this girl had lied about her name, had lied about her age, had lied on her profile so that she could contact whoever she wanted from the profile, and had lied about everything else related to herself. 

 The young mans neighbor, who worked as a bar tender and was accustomed to judging people's ages on a nightly basis, had met this girl and stated to an investigator  “She looked to be in her 20's.”  The girl was also emailing another female friend of the young mans, a friend of his since they had attended high school.

 When the police questioned the girl they asked her “how old did you tell him you were?”  She stated “eighteen.” This is stated on the police's initial interview, and on the interview of the 2nd state.

 This young man was in serious trouble.  The young man’s computers and the girl’s lap top and cell phone were confiscated and were sent to a Federal Bureau of Investigations Computer Forensic Lab.  It took months to get information back regarding the search that was performed.  It was finally reported to his attorney in the state he lived in that "the FBI found nothing illegal or anything that could be used against him in this or any other case."  They found no intent to commit any crime, no frequented child porn sites.  Understand here that the young man had driven the girl across state lines and the "Mann Act" could have been enforced even though the girl paid for the gas.  The FBI, after a thorough investigation into the case, stated they were not interested in his case. 

 This young man did not intend to be with a person under age.  He intended to date an eighteen year old.  He didn't even know her real name.  Does it change your opinion to know he was 30 years old and she was supposed to be 18?  It shouldn't.  When I was young it was a common age difference.  Who is to say what qualities attract people to each other?   It has only been in recent years that laws have been made to regulate young people's relationships to the Nth degree. Personal opinion differs on whether the age difference is acceptable or not.

  After his arrest and after the FBI stated they were not interested in his case,the young man’s twp attorneys (he had one in the original state and one from South Dakota) requested his family monitor this girls social networking sites and the family found (6) six social networking sites that she was maintaining.  On them the youngest age she had posted was eighteen.  The oldest was twenty-four.  None of them had her correct information.  The family printed pages from those sites for the attorney.

 State number one, his home state, dismissed their case against him.  The State's Motion to Dismiss included "The offense requires proof Mr. ***** acted knowing **** had not reached the minimum age for consent to sexual intercourse as defined in this state’s law (age 16).  **** and ****  made contact through an Internet social networking website.  On the website **** stated her age as eighteen.  Through statements to law enforcement **** maintained that she consistently represented her age to Mr. **** as 18.  Much of the communication between Mr. **** and ****. took place via computer.  A forensic review of the contents of the computers used by Mr. **** and **** did not indicate that Mr. **** knew **** had not attained the age of consent."

 This young man then had to face charges in South Dakota.  South Dakota, is a Strict Liability state in regard to the charges he was facing.  His parents and his friends were under the impression that even in a Strict Liability State a charge could be dismissed with enough proof.  His family and friends thought that the United States Constitution guaranteed everyone equal protection under the law. Obviously it doesn't.  Maybe it did at one time but not anymore.

  An example of Strict Liability would be: You buy a car from a car salesman, an individual, or over the internet, you received a receipt for that sale.  Police knock on your door and tell you the vehicle in your possession was stolen and you are under arrest.  The state has a Strict Liability in regard to stolen vehicles.  You would be charged with stealing that car and you would go to jail and possibly to prison depending what the laws of the state are.  The person that sold you the car would face no charges.  You would probably be told something about “due diligence” which means the process through which a person investigates an acquisition, and you would be told that you failed in your “due diligence”.   It would not matter that you have a sales receipt.  The seller would not be prosecuted because the vehicle is in your possession, not theirs.  The case would not be dismissed.  In order for a case to be dismissed it has to meet the defense criteria.  Where there is no defense, there is no defense critera.  Therefore, it is not possible for the case to be dismissed.

 It is a terrible misconception to think that if a person is not guilty and can prove it through truth and mitigating circumstances the case will be dismissed.  Strict liability is an automatic guilty verdict.  No defense, no dismissals.

 The State of South Dakota was not interested in the fact that one of this girls best friends who was also a minor, was having a relationship with a young man not related in any way to the person I know at the same time she was having a relationship with the young man I am talking about on this web page.  Both were under age.  I was actually sitting in the court room when the other young man was arraigned or had his first appearance.  I remember thinking “uh oh!  I wonder...”  Then later I was in the attorney’s office with the family when the attorney walked in and was upset because there were as he put it “far too many of these cases.”  There were more cases of the same nature at the this same time.  The attorney thought it might be the same girl.  But it wasn’t.  The friend of the girl was in a relationship where she had also misrepresented herself to a different young man. There were details on the girls social networking profiles. 

 The prosecuting states attorney was also not interested in the fact that the girl picked out another young man from her social net-working site right after the young man I know went to jail. This new man lived about a five hour drive from her home and he drove the five hours to meet her, on July 4, 2009, and I wonder what kinds of things usually happen in circumstances where someone drives five hours to meet.  All of this was on her social networking site, and more.  When my friend’s family tried to tell anyone regarding what they had gotten from her social networking sites the officials in the strict liability state stated "why would we want to know about that?"  Why indeed!!!!  STRICT LIABILITY.

 My opinion on this situation is that a group of young girls decided they wanted to experience adult sexual relationships.  Their favorite show was "Sex in the City."  (No offense to the show but it deserves parental supervision.)  They then picked out men they wanted to have those relationships with from their social networking profiles.  On their social networking profiles they talked about the fact that they had shared these sexual experiences in graphic detail with the group.  I have enough printed material from these profiles to at least support my assumption should I have to do so.  The State of South Dakota was not interested in what was on the Social Networking profiles.

 My friend was facing charges in two counties in South Dakota.  His attorney in this strict liability state told him that in order to keep both counties from filing charges against him he would have to plead guilty to the charges and a plea bargain was put in place so only one county would press charges against him.  So, he pled guilty to Count I Statutory Rape.  He was told that if he chose to go to Jury Trial, which they told him he had a right to do, the Jury would be instructed that only a guilty verdict could be returned in this case because of the criminal law pertaining to this case in the state. 

 The attorney wrote a letter to the court.  In the letter he stated that this case troubled him a great deal.  He stated that unlike other criminal cases, it was difficult to determine who the true victim in this case was.  He stated that this girl had lied to her mother, had lied to everyone that had access to her social networking sites, had lied to the young man facing the charges.  He stated that if the state in this case was required to prove that the young man in this case knew or reasonably should have known that this girl was not of legal age, he would be taking this case to a jury trial.  He stated that this was a strict liability offense in this state and regardless of any conduct on the girls’ behalf this meant that the young man was guilty of a felony in the state.  He also stated that it would be refreshing if the mother of this girl would accept at least some of the responsibility for a daughter with such indifference for the truth and an obvious desire to enter into inappropriate relationships.  He also stated how the mother had failed to monitor the girl’s internet usage.  He went on to state how the young man has no criminal history.  Not even a speeding ticket for several years. 

  The day before the young man was sentenced the girl was still maintaining all of her social networking sites and only one of them had her actual age listed in the profile because the attorneys for this young man had made that social networking site an issue.  

 The young man was sentenced to a Suspended Imposition of Sentence in that state.   His sentence included 30 days in the county jail and probation for 3 years during which time he has to sign as a sexual offender and attend mandatory group and individual sexual offender counseling.  When the three years of probation is completed successfully his case will be sealed except for law enforcement and he will not have a felony on his record.  Unless of course the Federal Government continues with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, the part of it that will require anyone who has ever been convicted of a sexual crime to sign a Federal Sexual Offender Register list for the rest of his life because his charge was Statutory Rape. 

 At the sentencing, the judge stated that in some states the minor is culpable and can be charged with a crime in these situations, but in this state they can not be charged because it is a strict liability state. 

 What has happened to the 14th amendment: “….nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

 This girl is not being held accountable for her actions in this situation. In my opinion, she is the party that should be on probation and going to the Sexual Offender Counseling sessions, not the young man I know.  This girl although a minor is the offender. 

  This has created tremendous heartache.  This charge has a terrible stigma attached, this young man has lost his job, lost his car, lost his apartment, used all of his savings, lost his freedom but worst of all he has lost his reputation.  He had an exemplary reputation.  It has ruined his entire family financially because they have spent everything they had to help him with his defense in a strict liability state.   His parents and his friends are terribly disillusioned regarding the blanket sentencing of "strict liability" irregardless of the situation and mitigating circumstances. 

 This kind of situation, meeting someone on the internet and having a relationship and finding out when it is too late that the individual was who and not the age they claimed to be, is happening all over the United States and young men and some women are going to jail and prison no matter what the facts of the situation are, mainly because of strict liability sentencing. 

 My  Personal opinion here is that if you put false information in a profile stating you are eighteen years of age or older you should be held accountable and anyone acting on that premise that you are eighteen should not be held accountable. 

 Parents, it is your responsibility to monitor your children.  The internet does not have to be a dangerous place and should be available to all ages.  The internet is interactive.  I read an article from a United Kingdom resource that stated if parents are not going to monitor their childrens' internet usage they might as well send them unchaperoned to the local bar.  Our kids play games with and interact with people from all over the world on the internet.  What a marvelous thing it can be for our children if it is supervised.  I just realized that Satellite TV has become interactive for gaming and other things which means to me that it should also be supervised and have child safety measures implemented until the child reaches the age of eighteen. 

  Why is an 1885 (he said she said) case still the precedence regarding these cases.  Maybe these cases couldn't be proven one way or the other in 1885, but with modern technology it is much more provable now.  If there had been a defense in the state the young man was sentenced, he definitely could have won the case.  Both of his attorneys said it was unusual to have the kind of proof they had and this wasn’t “he said, she said.”  He asked and she told him she was eighteen.  She stated to all investigators that she told him she was 18.

I recently received an email from a mother of another adult victim.  I am going to post it here. 

 "This just happened to our son.  He met a girl though a web site meant for over 18 years of age, she falsified her age and  was practicing what the teens now call "teen Sexting".  Our son came home from Iraq Nov 2007 to a country without work, finally found a job in security working midnights. He signed up for several dating services for he was not able to meet anyone his age while working mid night shift and sleeping during the day. All his paperwork for the police academy was finished he would have started this past summer, had it not been for some young mixed up teenager,who falsified information online, our son would be a police officer today."

 Sad, isn't it?  She did not include what kind of criminal charges her son faced or is facing.  If you are an adult, 18 years of age or older, sexting is not illegal.  But how do you know who that other person you are sending nude photos to is?  Minors are falsifying their information and adults are getting sent to prison.

 http://www.wyattlaw.com/cybersexattorney.html

You might want to take a look at this law office web site. They are from Oklahoma City, OK, defending many such situations and also taking Federal cases. When I started this web page I actually had to look up "sexting," "cyber sex" etc.  I had no idea what they were.  I found this site while I was looking and it was very illulminating.  I did telephone and talk to one of the attorneys who recommended that if the person is convicted, they should remain in the state that convicted them until their sentence is finished.  I am sure there are more attorneys like this in all states.

 This can be a hardship on the person who is convicted if he/she was living in a state other than the one his parents or some family member willing to help lives in.  Because of the Witch Hunting in the United States, most of these people need help to survive.

 Should Sexting Be a Crime? | from Parade.com     4-4-2010

http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/100404-should-sexting-be-a-crime.html

 There is a blog here.  Read the article then Vote.

Ideas To Develop 'Sexting' Laws

By Katie Janssen
Published: February 17, 2010, 5:56 PM

http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=0,96691

Wouldn't it be a better idea to simply not give your children a cell phone that takes pictures?  Why would they need something like that?  Young people should only be allowed to use a camera where the pictures have to be developed somewhere.  Simple solution that would stop the sexting activity of minors.

****************************************

When the legal systems fail.  This is an interview with a supposed Sexual Offender.

 We have protected our young women (perhaps I should say young people) but only a very few states providing "equal protection to all under the law."  How many states require proof that the individual charged acted knowing the minor had not reached the minimum age of consent to sexual intercourse as defined in that state's laws?  The last number I was able to verify was thirteen states had enacted this as a defense regarding these charges. It is not so easy to prove that the individual charged acted knowing the minor had not reached the minimum age of consent......Why wouldn't every state want to enact this into law?  Well, it would require law enforcement to get off their butts and do a little work.  It might also require parents to be more diligent in supervising their children or be held accountable .  Strict liability doesn't require any investigation into what really happened.  

 
 We either need to hold our young people accountable, hold their parents accountable or change the laws or both.  Yes said to a sexual relationship should mean yes.  Not all young people are victims.   

 Rape by Fraud is real also.  If we don't want our young people having sex before they are 18, well, after hearing the stories from my own friends and their daughters, sons, and grandchildren, I doubt if that is possible.  Where does that leave us? I suppose we could provide chaperons because that is what I think we would have to do.  Even when having a chaperon was mandatory young people still figured out how to have a sexual relationship.  So, where does that leave us?

 http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v101/n1/75/LR101n1Christopher.pdf

JURISDICTIONS & STANDARDS UNDER WHICH OBTAINING INTERCOURSE BY ADULT IMPERSONATION MAY CONSTITUTE RAPE BY FRAUD

It is about time someone came up with something like this.  This is only a possible defense.  It has not been accepted in any state, but considering the number of cases I personally know about, it should be accepted as a defense along with the state having to prove that the person charged acted knowing the minor had not reached the minimum age of consent to sexual intercourse as defined in state law.  Somebody needs to set this president!

 There is a federal code regarding computer fraud.                        TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1030 :   Fraud and related activity in connection with computers.  It might be a stretch, but why are people allowed to put fraudulent information in profiles on the internet.  Isn't that condoning illegal activity?  Aren't we just teaching our children that it is alright to lie?  Of course we are.

Young people are more than capable in forming intent to commit all kinds of crimes. What is wrong with a minor who lies to her mother, lies to everyone that has access to her social networking sites, lies to the young man she wants to date and has an "indifference for the truth and an obvious desire to enter into inappropriate relationships".  Something is definitely wrong with this minor.   Unfortunately this type of situation has reached epidemic proportions in our United States.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1127528/Boy-14-arrested-posing-police-officer-patrolling-Chicago-squad-car-hours.html

 Boy, 14, arrested after posing as a police officer and patrolling Chicago in a squad car for five hours.  He wasn’t caught because he didn’t look twenty-one years of age which is the youngest age to be hired on as a police officer in most jurisdictions.  He was caught because he didn’t have a badge on his shirt. 

http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=293383

 Sheriff:  La. 8^th-Grader Planned School Shooting

http://www.kwch.com/Global/story.asp?S=11390594

Jury convicts teenager in Mich. homeless killings 

 Sexting” by teens a punishable offense

Sorry, it has been removed from the internet.  I do have a copy though and I will see if I cannot scan it in and post it here.  

 This article was in the "The Wichita Eagle", Posted on Sat. April 11, 2009, by Ron Sylvester.....regarding "Sexting" in Wichita, Kansas and how the Police are handling it there. 

http://www.philadelphiacriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2009/02/underage_sexting_now_punishabl.html

Underage "Sexting" Now Punishable as a Sex Crime in a Growing Number of Jurisdictions

http://www.cfcamerica.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=224&Itemid=41

Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act Unconstitutional
From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia

"The sex-offender registry portion of this act has been ruled unconstitutional by Federal Judge Gregory Presnell in Orlando, FL on April 18, 2008.  Judge Presnell handed down United States v Powers, The court held that there was no rational relationship between the regulation of interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause powers of Congress and the ostensible federal interest in registering offenders convicted of state sex crimes"

“Without Conscience” a book written by Robert D. Hare, PhD.  The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us.

This book was recommended to me by a Dr. of Psychology.

Chapter 10, page 155.  Quoted from the book:

     “I know now, so there’s no sense in lying any more.”  Said Mrs. Penmark to her daughter Rhoda.  “You hit him with the shoe:  that’s how those half –moon marks got on his forehead and hands.”

   “Rhoda moved off slowly, an expression of patient bafflement in her eyes; then, throwing herself on the sofa, she buried her face in a pillow and wept plaintively, peering up at her mother through her laced fingers.  But the performance was not at all convincing, and Christine looked back at her child with a new, dispassionate interest, and thought, “She’s an amateur so far, but she’s improving day by day.  She’s perfecting her act.  In a few years, her act won’t seem corny at all.  It’ll be most convincing then, I’m sure.” 

-------William March, The Bad Seed

"The scene described above is from a bestselling novel that capitalized on the unthinkable and “monstrous” idea of children simply “born bad.”  The novel told the story of a little girl named Rhoda Penmark, whose true nature was revealed in the book when she murdered a classmate: “

“There had always been something strange about the child, but [her parents] had ignored her oddities, hoping she would become like the other children in time,….”

Page 157, “Without Conscience”

“To many people the very idea of psychopathy in childhood is inconceivable.  Yet, we have learned that elements of this personality disorder first become evident at a very early age.  A mother who read of my work in a newspaper article wrote this note to me, clearly in desperation:  “My son was always willful and difficult to get close to.  At five years old he had figured out the difference between right and wrong:  if he gets away with it, it’s right;  if he gets caught, it’s wrong.  From that point on, this has been his mode of operation.  Punishment, family blow ups, threats, pleas, counseling, even a run at what we call ‘psychology camp,’ haven’t made the slightest difference.  He is now fifteen and has been arrested seven times.”

Now I am going to challenge anyone who reads this to take the Psycho-sexual Evaluation, incognito of course.  Do you think you are "normal"?  See if you can take this battery of tests and score "normal".  I don’t believe anyone can score a “normal" on these tests.  Many times the testing computer isn't even working correctly.  It is assumed that if you have to take this test you are guilty and a sexual offender and the tests will reflect how abnormal you are whether you are or not.  The attitude of the people who give this test is also questionable.  But this test does generate a lot of money for somebody doesn't it.

 Who are the people running the sexual counseling groups?  I have talked to people on the Sexual Offender list from Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas and South Dakota.  Several of the people I talked to related that the facilitator in their group did not have a counseling degree of any kind.  

  I am presently researching the treatment used for sexual offenders.  When I am sure that the information I have been compiling is correct I will add it to this site.

 At this time, my research leads me to believe, I am not positive yet and just got two organization names today that I will be calling sometime next week.  So understand that what I have so far is from talking to Counselors but not Sexual Offender Counselors.  It appears that all states in the United States have the same guidelines for Sexual Offender Counseling and it is a program that is actually based on treating people with PTSD.  Counseling Techniques involving "Classical Conditioning and a reverse of "Systemic Desensitization".  The idea when used for PTSD is subjecting the individual to reliving the situation over and over until they no longer have a problem with it or in other words desensitization. Instead of Desensitizing with Sexial Abuse Counseling, they are trying to Sensitize the individual to feel so much pain they will not offend.   Seems to me someone should rethink this counseling.  What I have seen is the individuals in sexual abuse counseling become either so depressed they cannot function or so angry they commit some other crime not necessarily related to a sexual crime.

Many times the person in Sexual Offender counseling is not allowed to change counselors.  Offenders I talked to said they went to their Parole/Probation officers and told them they did not believe the counseling was helping and in fact might be doing the opposite for them.  They were ignored.

They are also told they cannot divulge anything about the counseling to any outside individual.  While I understand and agree that talking about another person who is in counseling if it is a group situation is not acceptable and should not be allowed, there is something terribly wrong with a program that does not allow anyone in it to talk about the procedure.  This raises large red flags for me.   What is going on in these counseling sessions that shouldn't be?  My mother used to say "if you are doing what is right you don't need to be afraid to talk about it."

How can our mental health professionals put everybody with a charge into the same type of counseling?  For Mental Health Counseling to be effective it has to be tailored to the individual needs of the client.

If you have something of interest, let me know by writing to webmaster@beyondmydoor.com

  Updated:  April 4, 2010

 Regarding the same issues see:

http://angryoffender.com

http://www.cfcamerica.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=770:interview-with-an-innocent-sexual-offender&catid=56:todays-issues&Itemid=131