Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
So. I am new here and have broused through many of the threads posted. I am a legal Guardian of a non-family member adult who was convicted of a sex crime in 2009 (by pleading guilty). I took guardianship of him after he was charged.
I have to say, I am very overwhelmed with emotions at the moment because of what is going on in my state, and elsewhere, involving those convicted of sex crimes and the refusals of our so-called government officials to listen to the voices of those who live and breathe the effects of the system day and night for years on end and lifetimes to come.
It is because of this that I want to share the following with you. Maybe what I share will help some of you and maybe those of you whom it does not help directly can, in turn, help someone else.
In the course of my denying consent for my ward of guardianship to go through sex offender treatment in the prison because of his disabiities and that the program is intentionally designed to cause participants with disabilities to fail, I wrote a 15 page denial of consent response. Since that time, I have written a 45 page report to state government and juridical officials who are apart of a task force to reform our state criminal justice and correctional systems. I also testified before the state Sentate Judiciary Criminal and Civil Jurisprudence Committee against a Bill that sought to further utilize prisons as mental institutions.
In the course of my writing my reports and do research for such, I came across some rather important lawsuits filed by prisoners accused of and those convicted of sex crimes, that won in court.
There are three state court rulings that discuss a "back door approach" to challenge sex offender registration laws. It is the sex offender's "defamation of character" legal grounds to challenge whether they should be on a registry list at all, and to what degree. Each of these state court rulings cite what is called the "stigma plus" test, which amounts to a defamation of character lawsuit against the state for labeling someone as a sex offender and putting them on a registry list. Those cases are:
Schuyler v. Roberts 175 P. 3d 259 (Kan: Sup Ct. 2008) State of Kansas
Brummer v. Iowa Dept. of Corrections, 661 N.W.2d 167 (Ia. 2003); State of Iowa
Noble v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 327 Or. 485, 964 P.2d 990, 995-96 (1998); State of Oregon
There are also two very - very important cases involving civil commitment of sex offenders.
The first one was filed by Timothy Orden
Timothy Nelson v. Martha Bellew-Smith, et al., 476 F.3d 635 (8th Cir. 2006)
Mr. Nelson was raped while in a civil commitment treatment center. His psychologist refused to give him the treatment for being rapped that she prescribed. Upon filing complaints and threatening to sue, staff retaliated against Mr. Nelson. And it was only because Mr. Nelson filed his federal lawsuit that it was discovered the state had committed Mr. Nelson without a court order to do so. He was denied his due process civil commitment court hearing for five (5) years. In February 2011 Mr. Nelson won $25,000 from a federal jury award for being denied treatment in civil commitment and being retaliated against for filing complaints.
The second lawsuit was filed by Mr. Van Orden.
John Van Orden, et al., v. Harold Meyers, et al., No. 4:09-cv-00971-AGF (U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D. Mo. 2009)
On October 3, 2011, the federal District Court certified the lawsuit as class action suit. The court also ordered for the suit to go into an Alternative Dispute Resolution program, which essentially means the sex offenders suing won their lawsuit.
In that case the members of the class action lawsuit alleged they were being denied sex offender treatment by the state while in civil commitment and they were not being provided licensed or otherwise qualified professionals to administer sex offender treatment.
The state argued it has a right to provide whatever treatment it wants to provide even treatment that the state knows does not work and is being administered by unlicensed and unqualified personnel. The court did not agree with the state's argument because while the state can provide whatever treatment it wants to provide it must provide a treatment program that works so those civilly committed have an opportunity to rehabilitate and rejoin society.
The class action lawsuit also challenges the states right to charge sex offenders and their family members $325.00 per-day for the sex offender to be civilly committed, especially in light of the state no providing proper treatment, which the state is required to provide.
In other words, in Missouri and other states, sex offenders are going after sex crime laws on grounds that give them a far - far better chance of winning.
1. Attack sex offender registration laws and practices under the "stigma plus" test which is the defamation of character suit for sex offenders.
2. Attack the lack of or improper treatment under due process rights.
3. Attack the state's right to financially charge a sex offender or family member for services not rendered yo the sex offender.
Family members might also have legal standing to file lawsuits against the state, as well, dealing with registration laws if the sex offender lives with their family and a family member suffers damages because of the registration laws.
People think of sex offender laws and what's wrong with them on a one dimensional level - we need to start getting creative because sex offender laws do not only affect the sex offender but everyone involved with them, as well for example. If a sex offender is denied entry into a group home because the group home is near a school or day care and the sex offender becomes homeless or suffers other harm there can be grounds to challenge registration laws and even Halloween laws
Anyway I hope this helps someone.
I have to say, I am very overwhelmed with emotions at the moment because of what is going on in my state, and elsewhere, involving those convicted of sex crimes and the refusals of our so-called government officials to listen to the voices of those who live and breathe the effects of the system day and night for years on end and lifetimes to come.
It is because of this that I want to share the following with you. Maybe what I share will help some of you and maybe those of you whom it does not help directly can, in turn, help someone else.
In the course of my denying consent for my ward of guardianship to go through sex offender treatment in the prison because of his disabiities and that the program is intentionally designed to cause participants with disabilities to fail, I wrote a 15 page denial of consent response. Since that time, I have written a 45 page report to state government and juridical officials who are apart of a task force to reform our state criminal justice and correctional systems. I also testified before the state Sentate Judiciary Criminal and Civil Jurisprudence Committee against a Bill that sought to further utilize prisons as mental institutions.
In the course of my writing my reports and do research for such, I came across some rather important lawsuits filed by prisoners accused of and those convicted of sex crimes, that won in court.
There are three state court rulings that discuss a "back door approach" to challenge sex offender registration laws. It is the sex offender's "defamation of character" legal grounds to challenge whether they should be on a registry list at all, and to what degree. Each of these state court rulings cite what is called the "stigma plus" test, which amounts to a defamation of character lawsuit against the state for labeling someone as a sex offender and putting them on a registry list. Those cases are:
Schuyler v. Roberts 175 P. 3d 259 (Kan: Sup Ct. 2008) State of Kansas
Brummer v. Iowa Dept. of Corrections, 661 N.W.2d 167 (Ia. 2003); State of Iowa
Noble v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 327 Or. 485, 964 P.2d 990, 995-96 (1998); State of Oregon
There are also two very - very important cases involving civil commitment of sex offenders.
The first one was filed by Timothy Orden
Timothy Nelson v. Martha Bellew-Smith, et al., 476 F.3d 635 (8th Cir. 2006)
Mr. Nelson was raped while in a civil commitment treatment center. His psychologist refused to give him the treatment for being rapped that she prescribed. Upon filing complaints and threatening to sue, staff retaliated against Mr. Nelson. And it was only because Mr. Nelson filed his federal lawsuit that it was discovered the state had committed Mr. Nelson without a court order to do so. He was denied his due process civil commitment court hearing for five (5) years. In February 2011 Mr. Nelson won $25,000 from a federal jury award for being denied treatment in civil commitment and being retaliated against for filing complaints.
The second lawsuit was filed by Mr. Van Orden.
John Van Orden, et al., v. Harold Meyers, et al., No. 4:09-cv-00971-AGF (U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D. Mo. 2009)
On October 3, 2011, the federal District Court certified the lawsuit as class action suit. The court also ordered for the suit to go into an Alternative Dispute Resolution program, which essentially means the sex offenders suing won their lawsuit.
In that case the members of the class action lawsuit alleged they were being denied sex offender treatment by the state while in civil commitment and they were not being provided licensed or otherwise qualified professionals to administer sex offender treatment.
The state argued it has a right to provide whatever treatment it wants to provide even treatment that the state knows does not work and is being administered by unlicensed and unqualified personnel. The court did not agree with the state's argument because while the state can provide whatever treatment it wants to provide it must provide a treatment program that works so those civilly committed have an opportunity to rehabilitate and rejoin society.
The class action lawsuit also challenges the states right to charge sex offenders and their family members $325.00 per-day for the sex offender to be civilly committed, especially in light of the state no providing proper treatment, which the state is required to provide.
In other words, in Missouri and other states, sex offenders are going after sex crime laws on grounds that give them a far - far better chance of winning.
1. Attack sex offender registration laws and practices under the "stigma plus" test which is the defamation of character suit for sex offenders.
2. Attack the lack of or improper treatment under due process rights.
3. Attack the state's right to financially charge a sex offender or family member for services not rendered yo the sex offender.
Family members might also have legal standing to file lawsuits against the state, as well, dealing with registration laws if the sex offender lives with their family and a family member suffers damages because of the registration laws.
People think of sex offender laws and what's wrong with them on a one dimensional level - we need to start getting creative because sex offender laws do not only affect the sex offender but everyone involved with them, as well for example. If a sex offender is denied entry into a group home because the group home is near a school or day care and the sex offender becomes homeless or suffers other harm there can be grounds to challenge registration laws and even Halloween laws
Anyway I hope this helps someone.
I would like your permission to forward it to a legal study committee (all attorneys) for their review. As we are all are grasping for sound and legal actions, this one sounds the most promising.
Thank you so much for your obvious length of time it took to research and gather this information.
Your efforts are greatly appreciated!
Again, Welcome to our group!
RWsMom
These are all papers from law schools on the sex offender subject that I am reviewing. They have done recent research and studies. Most of them have several papers listed but I am on reviewing the ones about sex offenders and how we need to change the punishments and laws. If anyone is interested, its a lot of reading but it seems worth it so far.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1568352&rec=1&srcabs=1577961
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1233126
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=858727
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1457197&rec=1&srcabs=1577961
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=445060
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1568352&rec=1&srcabs=1577961
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=827096
What has brought you to this subject? Are you studying to be a litigator or is this for some other social science?
Insofar as the "stigma plus" test - here is what the courts have said:
See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. at 693, 701, 710-711, S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976); Gunderson v. Hvass, 339 F.3d 639, 642 (8th Cir. 2003); Schuyler v. Roberts 175 P. 3d 259 (Kan: Sup Ct. 2008) (Offender in the El Dorado Correctional Facility was classified as a sex offender by prison officials and placed in a sex offender treatment program without a hearing and without proof that he had ever been convicted of a sexually motivated crime. The Kansas State Supreme Court upheld the State Appeal Courts ruling reversing the district courts dismissal of the offenders suit).
In Brummer v. Iowa Dept. of Corrections, 661 N.W.2d 167 (Ia. 2003), the Iowa Supreme Court held that “[a]liberty interest is at stake whenever a sex offender risk assessment is conducted in Iowa”: The court also noted that: [A]fter completing the assessment and notifying an offender of the results, and pending limited appellate procedures, the individual's status as a convicted sex offender together with an additional classification of his risk to reoffend, can be transmitted, in varying extent and degree, to different members of the public. This entire process clearly implicates a liberty interest in that it threatens the impairment and foreclosure of the associational or employment opportunities of persons who may not truly pose the risk to the public that an errant risk assessment would indicate. Ultimately, we believe the Oregon Supreme Court best explained this concept in the course of its consideration of an issue similar to the one presented here:
When a government agency focuses its machinery on the task of determining whether a person
should be labeled publicly as having a certain undesirable characteristic or belonging to a
certain undesirable group, and that agency must by law gather and synthesize evidence outside
the public record in making that determination, the interest of the person to be labeled goes
beyond mere reputation. The nterest cannot be captured in a single word or phrase. It is an
interest in knowing when the government is moving against you and why it has singled you out
for special attention. It is an interest in avoiding the secret machinations of a Star Chamber.
Finally, and most importantly, it is an interest in avoiding the social ostracism, loss of
employment opportunities, and significant likelihood of verbal and, perhaps, even physical
harassment likely to follow from designation. In our view, that interest, when combined with the
obvious reputational interest that is at stake, qualifies as a “liberty” interest within the meaning of
the Due Process Clause. Noble v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 327 Or. 485, 964
P.2d 990, 995-96 (1998).
I hope this comes out right when I hit "submit reply" as I cannot go back and edit it - so if it does not come out nice and neat please forgive me.
As for H.R. 3053.IH. I am not saying I agree with what Congress is wanting to do insofar as exempting people with HIV and AIDS from having to be registered sex offenders. The obvious argument is that if they have such and do engage in sex crimes it can become a death sentence for their victim(s).
The part I focus on is that the Bill openly admits the harmful affects that come with being required to register, and the fact Congress seeks to cherry pick a small class of sex offenders with disabilities (HIV and AIDS are qualified disabilities) for exemption of federal and state laws involving sex offender registration. In doing this, it opens the door to challenge registration in other classes as well.
There are also efforts going on, at least in two states, to require registered sex offenders to give up all their information involving Internet usage. One court, in Utah, found this to violate the First Amendment because while the state has a substantial interest to protect children, the state law was lacking in language to show who would have access to the sex offenders information and how it would be distributed. Even sex offenders retain their First Amendment rights, apart of which is to communicate with others on the Internet and to do so anonymously.
As for internet usage.... according to Sofsky http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1249776.html the internet is no different than someone using the telephone to commit a crime, the court nor the law prohibits the use of the telephone because they would have access to more victims. Same with people that commit mail fraud. There are some more that I have listed on my site http://rsolwisconsin.blogspot.com
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3053
Politicians use sex crimes to profit off of in their political careers, and as a platform to inflame hate, intolerance, and prejudice. They are also using sex crime laws to fulfill a long standing government desire of exterminating people with disabilities from society by imposing life sentences in civil commitments.
In my state, the argument the Attorney General recently made is that we need to put these folks in civil commitment so they can get the help they need. Of course, the fact his office just lost two extremely important federal lawsuits filed by sex offenders for not being given treatment is certainly mud in his eye - a political PR nightmare, if you ask me.
However, what I find is that there are far too many - the majority I think - family members who are not willing to step up to the plate and demand politicians listen to their voices. Most do this because they are afraid of retaliation, not only against them but more importantly against their loved one. It is certainly an understandable concern but that is exactly what DOC, P and P, and politicians want their responses to be.
I too filed a federal lawsuit recently to force mental heatlh personnel to provide my ward of guardianship proper treatment conducive to his diabilities. One of his disabilities is neurological deficits that adversely affect his memory - it is well documented and even the prison medical doctor asked mental health two times to treat him for this condition but they refuse to do so. How in the world they think he can go throough and participate in the prison sex offender program, and actually graduate, is beyond me.
Okay, my blood is starting to boil now, so I am going to go and calm down.
I have let Sharie know about this information, and provided her copies of the court rulings for the federal court cases I discuss above, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Orden, as well as H.R. 3053.IH, for her review and distribution to other members of MCR