Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/editorials/2016/01/editorial_sex_offender_snafu
It's good to see that they are admitting that they don't have a problem with the court raising the burden of proof. But God forbid they lose access to information about some sex offenders, with all of those studies that show how knowing where sex offenders live reduces sexual assault. Oh wait--there aren't any.
On a serious note this is great news for us. Preponderance of the evidence which was the old standard for determining dangerousness for the purpose of putting information online was far too easy to meet. Preponderance means more likely than not, I was told by my lawyer it means 50.1%. There is no percentage for clear and convincing evidence but it falls between preponderance and beyond reasonable doubt. So it is increasing the state's burden to show dangerousness. This is a very good thing!
It's good to see that they are admitting that they don't have a problem with the court raising the burden of proof. But God forbid they lose access to information about some sex offenders, with all of those studies that show how knowing where sex offenders live reduces sexual assault. Oh wait--there aren't any.
On a serious note this is great news for us. Preponderance of the evidence which was the old standard for determining dangerousness for the purpose of putting information online was far too easy to meet. Preponderance means more likely than not, I was told by my lawyer it means 50.1%. There is no percentage for clear and convincing evidence but it falls between preponderance and beyond reasonable doubt. So it is increasing the state's burden to show dangerousness. This is a very good thing!
True story. A certain 'screener' counted every hearing ( on the same charge) as multiple incidents thus ensuring Tier 3 for every one they screened. If you had a parole but didn't like your tier had to stay in prison (after being granted parole) in order to fight your classification because (catch 22) there was no appeal process to fight your classification once you were actually out on parole....
BTW, does a state/ Parole department get more funding if everyone they supervise is a dangerous Tier-3 offender?