Budget woes prompt states to rethink prison policy, posted by Robert Paisola

By DAVID CRARY

AP National Writer

NEW YORK » Their budgets in crisis, governors, legislators and prison officials across the nation are making or considering policy changes that will likely remove tens of thousands of offenders from prisons and parole supervision.

Collectively, the pending and proposed initiatives could add up to one of biggest shifts ever in corrections policy, putting into place cost-saving reforms that have struggled to win political support in the tough-on-crime climate of recent decades.

"Prior to this fiscal crisis, legislators could tinker around the edges -- but we're now well past the tinkering stage," said Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, which advocates alternatives to incarceration.

"Many political leaders who weren't comfortable enough, politically, to do it before can now -- under the guise of fiscal responsibility -- implement programs and policies that would be win/win situations, saving money and improving corrections," Mauer said

In California, faced with a projected $42 billion deficit and prison overcrowding that has triggered a federal lawsuit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to eliminate parole for all offenders not convicted of violent or sex-related crimes, reducing the parole population by about 70,000. He also wants to divert more petty criminals to county jails and grant early release to more inmates -- steps that could trim the prison population by 15,000 over the next 18 months.

In Kentucky, where the inmate population had been soaring, even some murderers and other violent offenders are benefiting from a temporary cost-saving program that has granted early release to nearly 2,000 inmates.

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine is proposing early release of about 1,000 inmates. New York Gov. David Paterson wants early release for 1,600 inmates as well as an overhaul of the so-called Rockefeller Drug Laws that impose lengthy mandatory sentences on many nonviolent drug offenders.

"These laws have neither curbed drug use nor enhanced public safety," said Donna Lieberman of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "Instead, they have ruined thousands of lives and annually wasted millions of tax dollars in prison costs."

Policy-makers in Michigan, one of four states that spend more money on prisons than higher education, are awaiting a report later this month from the Council of State Governments' Justice Center on ways to trim fast-rising corrections costs, likely including sentencing and parole modifications.

"There's a new openness to taking a look," said state Sen. Alan Cropsey, a Republican who in the past has questioned some prison-reform proposals. "What we'll see are changes being made that will have a positive impact four, five, six years down the road."

Even before the recent financial meltdown, policy-makers in most states were wrestling with ways to contain corrections costs. The Pew Center's Public Safety Performance Project has projected that state and federal prison populations -- under current policies -- will grow by more than 190,000 by 2011, to about 1.7 million, at a cost to the states of $27.5 billion.

"Prisons are becoming less and less of a sacred cow," said Adam Gelb, the Pew project's director. "The budget crisis is giving leaders on both sides of the aisle political cover they need to tackle issues that would be too tough to tackle when budgets are flush."

In contrast to past economic downturns, Gelb said, states now have better data on how to effectively supervise nonviolent offenders in their communities so prison populations can be reduced without increasing the threat to public safety.

Safety remains a potent factor. In California, for example, the state correctional officers' union contends Schwarzenegger's proposals will fuel more crime.

In Idaho, a combination of budget cuts and prison overcrowding contributed to an uprising Jan. 2 in a former prison workshop that was converted into a temporary cell block. Inmates who engaged in vandalism and arson had been placed there as part of a cost-cutting effort to move other prisoners back to Idaho from more expensive quarters at a private prison in Oklahoma.

Thomas Sneddon, a former Santa Barbara, Calif., prosecutor who is now executive director of the National District Attorneys Association, said he and his colleagues support reappraisals of corrections policies yet worry constantly that dangerous criminals will be released unwisely.

"I don't think the public at large has any idea of who's in these prisons," Sneddon said. "If they went and visited, they'd say 'My God, don't let any of these people out.'"

He noted that many states are seeking to send fewer offenders back to prison for technical violations of parole conditions. Some of these violations are indeed relatively minor, Sneddon said, but often they are accompanied by more serious criminal behavior that warrants a return to prison.

As budgetary pressures worsen, some advocacy groups are concerned that spending cuts will target the very programs needed to help inmates avoid re-offending after release -- education, vocational and drug-treatment programs.

"The idea that we'd cut programs and then release inmates early is a toxic combination," said Pat Nolan, vice president of Prison Fellowship. "Just opening prison doors and letting people out with no preparation -- that's cruel to the offender and dangerous to public."

However, Nolan, a former California legislator who served time in a federal prison on a racketeering charge, sees the current climate as ripe for the kind of reforms Prison Fellowship has advocated with its Christian-based outreach programs.

"It's forcing the legislators to see the actual costs of imprisonment, because it's coming out of the budget for schools, roads, hospitals," he said.

The Council of State Government's Justice Center has been working with 10 states to develop options for curbing prison populations without jeopardizing public safety. Tactics used in Texas and Kansas have included early release for inmates who complete specified programs, more sophisticated community supervision of offenders, and expanded treatment and diversion programs.

"There's an unprecedented level of interest in this kind of thinking," said the Justice Center's director, Michael Thompson. "It's a combination of fiscal pressure and a certain fatigue of doing the same thing as 20 years ago and getting the same return."

In Florida, where prisons are so crowded that the state has acquired tents for possible use to house inmates, officials say 19 new prisons may be needed over the next five years. As an alternative, Corrections Secretary Walter McNeil told lawmakers they should re-evaluate the state's hard-line sentencing policies and look at ways to help released inmates avoid returning to prison.

One important variable is the role of private prisons, which some advocacy groups consider less accountable that state-run prisons. Elizabeth Alexander of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project expressed concern that fiscally struggling states would rely increasingly on private operators.

The largest private prison firm, Nashville, Tenn.-based Corrections Corporation of America, operates in 20 states and says some of them have asked if CCA can expand its capacity so more beds don't need to be added to the state-run system.

"Of the states we do business with, none have made prison construction a priority in this economic environment," said Tony Grande, CCA's executive vice president. "Our partnership with the states will become even stronger. ...We want to be a part of their financial solution."

What is a collection company? Posted by Robert Paisola

What is a collection company?

The two most likely scenarios are.

Some creditors will attempt to fool a debtor by using a separate company name, address, and phone number for their internal collection departments, in order to give the impression of an “outside” agency. This strategy is should only be used when the debt is recent (under six months past due.)

However, most debt collection activity is performed by a third-party collection company, These are separate from the original creditors, and “work” bad debt on behalf of various lenders and 1st party credit granters. They occasionally purchase bad debts which have been designated as charge-offs or write-off’s by the original creditor.

This article will spotlight 3rd party collection companies

How does a collection company get paid?

3rd party debt collection companies often work on 100% commission, where they only get paid when they recover funds. Collectors are usually paid a small hourly wage plus commissions and/or bonus based on results.

Many collection companies purchase substantial debt portfolios of charged-off accounts for a fraction of the total face amount (total amount outstanding) After a portfolio is sold off, the debtors now owe the entire amount to the purchasing company. The probability of collecting money decreases substantially over time, an agency might only pay 1% - 5% of face value. The agencies’ profits come from the difference between the purchase price and the amounts that are hopefully collected.

How does the collection company work?

The primary tools of a collection company are letters and telephone calls.

What are the dunning notices like?

The dunning letters are usually computer-generated. They are often in a standardized series which starts with a simple, “reminder” tone, and may buildup to a final demand. The letters are pre-written and sent to many debtors; they are not personal.

The first letter must state that the recipient has the right to dispute the validity of the debt (in writing), and the agency must send some confirmation after verifying it with the original creditor. Collection letters must also contain the statement that they come from a debt collector, and that any information gathered will be used for the purpose of collecting the debt. Collectors are legally prohibited from printing anything on the outside of the envelope which indicates or suggests the nature of the communication. Even the return address must be discreet, so many agencies will just use their company’s initials, or some other nondescript name.

The debtor’s reaction to the letters will affect which letters the agency will select from its repertoire. Cooperation (e.g. making payment arrangements and/or partial payments) may result in letters with a gentler tone. Evasive or hostile reactions from the debtor may result in a more threatening tone.

Collectors attempt to create a sense of urgency, to try and collect the debt within the shortest amount of time. This hopefully will encourage the debtor to prioritize that particular obligation. Deadlines may be set, such as, Pay this amount within 10 days. There may also be threats, such as, …Or we will proceed with further collection attempts. But most of the time, if a debtor fails to meet the deadline, all that will happen is that yet another dunning letter will arrive, making the same basic demand. The & further collection action usually just means more dunning letters.

Collection letters will always coax the debtor to call the collection company directly via the telephone. If the debtor doesn’t call within thirty days, then a collector will usually attempt to contact the debtor again.

What are the phone calls like?

Individual telephone collectors may be assigned a group of accounts, and spend their entire workday, every day, calling them. Their enthusiasm is fueled by frequent performance evaluations and personal commission payments. The size of a collector’s own paycheck is dependent upon how much money s/he extracts from debtors. Between that factor, and the relentless confrontations, this is a very high-stress job, with high employee turnover.

If a debt collector calls and reaches someone other than the debtor (e.g. a friend), s/he is legally prohibited from disclosing That this is an attempt to collect a debt. Every state is different but this may or may not include the debtor’s spouse. If the collector reaches an answering machine or voice mail, s/he will often leave a FDCPA approved message, but is prohibited from giving details for the call, since someone besides the debtor might hear it. The basic message goes something like, “I am calling for Jane Doe. It is very important that you call me back. My name is JR Rooney, and my number is 1-631-776-8109.” S/he will typically sound rather unemotional and stiff. Collection companies may be required to provide a phone number which is free for the debtor to call. They also may attach their toll free numbers to caller ID equipment which instantly identifies and logs the phone number the debtor is calling from, in order to call the debtor at that number at a later date.

When contacting a debtor, many collectors (especially those with very little experience) will use an approved script, which contains a pre-written introduction, demands for payment, and has various branches to follow. Based on how the debtor responds, rebuttals are also provided. If a particular debtor is wasting too much time, without agreeing to pay, the collector will be urged to move on to other accounts.

Any information obtained will be used for collection purposes. If the debtor gives information about his/her financial situation (e.g. income or current employment, etc.) it will be recorded on the debtors permanent record and used to estimate the probability of a successful collection and/or the advantage of legal action, and so forth.

Can the collection company actually do anything?

If they are working the debt on commission, they can send some more form letters and make some more scripted phone calls.

They can also mark the item as negative with the credit bureaus. If they are working on contingency, they can recommend filing suit, or if they own the account, they can file suit. However, the actual chances or intentions of this are often significantly less than they try to suggest to the debtor.

Collection companies can not legally seize a debtor’s assets, bank accounts, or paycheck unless there has already been a successful lawsuit with a judgment awarded to them.

Collection companies can not legally make any kind of public announcements or disclosures concerning the debt, except to the credit bureaus.

Collection companies can not legally get a debtor fired from his/her job.

Collection companies can not legally engage in any type of physical violence or threats to collect.

Why does the debtor pay?

Many times the reasons include fear, guilt, intimidation, and a lack of understanding of the legal remedies available. Plus it is the right thing to do.

The debtor may feel guilty and ashamed of being a “deadbeat,” and may perceive a judgment of his/her value as a person.

The debtor may have greatly exaggerated ideas about what collectors are (legally) capable of doing, and may have outdated stereotypes in mind.

The debtor may be overwhelmed by the aggressive and relentless demands, from companies that may seem so powerful. S/he may take it personally, and assume that great individual attention is being given to this particular collection file.

Consumers being contacted by collection companies are typically in serious financial difficulty, and under emotional stress about the general situation, so they may be confused and vulnerable.

Many debtors aren’t aware of their legal rights, and feel powerless.

There are two basic things that a collection company can actually do that a debtor should be concerned about. These involve negative info being reported to the credit bureaus, and the unlikely possibility of a lawsuit.

What about credit reports?

Third-party collection companies may report a debt to one or more of the credit bureaus, as a “Collection Account,” including the amount, and whether it was paid or not. Paying off a collection account will not result in the item being removed from the consumer’s credit reports - it will simply be marked “Paid.” Agencies can report both debts that they have bought, and also debts that they are working on behalf of the actual creditor.

Also, a collection company may request a debtor’s credit file, in order to get an idea of his/her general financial situation, and to get an updated address and phone number.

How long do collection accounts last?

Collection accounts are subject to the normal seven-year time limit for appearing on credit reports. As specified in Section 605 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, this time limit is based on the date of the original delinquency.

What are the chances of a lawsuit?

If the debt was placed on contingency, the 3rd party collection company cannot file a lawsuit. If the balance is large enough and the debtor is being resistant and if there are indications that the debtor has vulnerable assets, the agency may send the account back to the creditor with a recommendation to file suit. Every creditor has its own criteria for the final decision; for example, the amount must be substantial (often $1500 or more, at the very least.)

Collection companies tend to avoid sending too many accounts back, since it suggests that they aren’t very good at collecting. Also, letters and phone calls are much less expensive than going to court.

If an agency has bought a debt, then they have the ability to sue, but by that time, the debt is likely to be rather old, and the agency doesn’t have much invested in it.

Collectors tend to focus on fear and intimidation, since those things can work much more quickly, cheaply, and efficiently than legal action.

Suit is certainly brought against many debtors, but not as often as debtors think. There is a big difference between, “Pay up or we will continue with collection action,” compared to an actual Summons And Complaint.

If the debt is substantial and recent, and the debtor appears to be a good target (e.g. reasonable assets or income), a lawsuit is a real possibility. If you are served with legal documents specifying a particular court, hearing date, etc., you should see a qualified attorney immediately. That area is beyond the scope of this FAQ.

Who regulates collection companies?

The most important law is the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which places many restrictions on collection activities. The FDCPA only covers 3rd party collection companies, not original creditors.

All the states have applicable laws regarding such things as telephone harassment.

Who enforces the FDCPA?

The Federal Trade Commission oversees the collections industry, and has the authority to impose fines or other penalties for violations. However, the FTC does not get involved with individual consumers’ cases. They accept a large number of complaints, and look for patterns of violations which could then lead to action against a particular collection company.

What if a collection company ownes the debt?

The agency then becomes the creditor for most purposes. The debtor will not be able to make any negotiations with the original creditor. The agency might be technically able to file a lawsuit against the debtor, (although this is not likely.)

However, the Federal Trade Commission has issued a Staff Opinion Letter which indicates that, even if a collection company has purchased a debt, it is still covered under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as a “third-party debt collector.”

What about the relevant time limits?

The debt does not become some kind of “new” debt just because of being sold. For example, the seven-year credit reporting time limit is still based on the original delinquency date with the original creditor. The statute of limitations for filing lawsuits is also based on that same date. These limits can not be legitimately “reset” by a collection company that has bought the debt.

However, the statute of limitations may possibly be reset if the debtor makes a specific promise to pay, or a partial payment.

Can the collection company do anything after the time limit expires?

Yes. The statute of limitations only covers the filing of lawsuits, and the credit reporting time limit only covers bureau listings. There is no time limit on letters and phone calls.

A collection company that has purchased a bundle of “out-of-statute” debts (where the SOL has already expired, or “run”) is hoping that, either the debtors will feel guilty, or that they won’t be aware of that “out-of-statute” status. But if a particular debtor makes it clear that s/he understands the legal situation, then the collectors are likely to give up and move on to easier targets.

Can collectors call the debtor’s place of employment?

Yes, but there are limitations. For example, they can not legally tell your employer about the debt, or try to have you fired.

Is there any way to make them stop calling?

Yes. According to section 805 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act:

“(c) CEASING COMMUNICATION. If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except –

(1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector’s further efforts are being terminated;

(2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or

(3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy.

If such notice from the consumer is made by mail, notification shall be complete upon receipt.”

So the consumer can just send a 3rd party collection company a written notice (preferably citing the FDCPA), ordering them to stop the collection letters and calls, and the agency is legally obligated to comply. The only permissible contact thereafter is to notify the debtor of specific “remedies,” like legal action, but usually the collectors won’t even bother.

If the creditor hasn’t yet made a decision on whether or not to file a lawsuit, then that decision may be made at this point, rather than being delayed.

After a “cease and desist” notice from the consumer, the debt may then be returned to the original creditor, passed on to another third-party agency, or simply filed away, depending on the circumstances. The agency may still report the account to the credit bureaus.

From JR Rooney

Failure to Register as a Sex Offender- In The Proper Format? A Question for the Supreme Court, Posted by Robert Paisola

Failure to Register as a Sex Offender- In The Proper Format? A Question for the Supreme Court, Posted by Robert Paisola

We at BOPWATCHDOG.COM received this letter. There are many valid points and more to come.News of a horrific crime, reporters telling the details over and over, mugshots of the suspect on the screen, revelation that the suspect is a registered sex offender. Even though such a crime might occur hundreds of miles away, I panic.

That crime could cost my son any remaining chance of a normal, stable childhood. It could cost me the choice to live peacefully with my husband, the right to live free of the terror that someone will show up on my doorstep intent on murder.

Why? Because in response to horrific crimes, society now lashes out at law-abiding citizens who, in the past, broke the law. Punishes them again by broadcasting their daily whereabouts to the world, driving them into joblessness and homelessness, banning them from walking down a city street or taking shelter in cases of emergencies. And the law thoroughly punishes their families. Spouses must either live under the same dangers, restrictions and privacy invasions, or abandon their marriage. Children lose friends, homes, and the right to be free of mockery and assault and fear.

We don't speak out often. Being legally required to provide personal information to those who wish to kill us tends to stifle public discourse. If a death threat is made, we cannot protect ourselves by staying with relatives or in a hotel for a few days. The law requires we keep the potential killer updated as to where we can be found. And that potential killer would have more rights under the law, even if he murdered us, than we do as people trying to remain in compliance with ever-changing laws.

My husband was convicted decades ago of a sex crime against an adult. He served time, he participated in years of treatment during and after release, he spent additional years under supervision. Then a court, and a panel of mental health experts, deemed he was no longer a danger to anyone. Not medium risk, not low risk. No risk. He set out to do what hundreds of thousands of ex-cons do--build a new life--and he succeeded. We married and had a child. We worked hard, contributed to our community, raised our son, made plans for the future.

Then society demanded a do-over, and contrived to do so through "regulation." So another court decided there was no punishment attached to retroactive registration of sex offenders, nor in the highly publicized dissemination of their whereabouts. Even though we are no longer subject to criminal supervision, "civil" laws have taken our privacy, our right to live and travel where we choose, and our right to be free of harassment.

Politicians, the media, and the public make it clear to us: We are human garbage. Toxic waste. Unfit to breathe the air. Unworthy of life. Deserving of death at the hands of vigilantes.

Yes, I say "we," even though my husband is the only sex offender in the family. For years, the public, politicians, and certain advocacy groups have gotten away with failing to acknowledge the swath of collateral damage their law-making has inflicted. If a mere third of offenders are married, almost a quarter million spouses are recklessly placed in jeopardy by the laws. If a third live with a parent, almost a quarter million family members are at risk. If a third have a single child, almost a quarter million children are--daily-- endangered by public notification and the prevailing, rabidly encouraged public sentiment that any registered offender should be tormented at every opportunity. Our lives are ones of fear.

To those who say I knew what I was getting into by marrying a man with a sex crime in his past, consider this: We married five years before the first law that affected us was passed, and nearly ten years before the current crop became law. Ten years ago, no reasonable person would have predicted that, absent any wrongdoing in that time, we'd suddenly be violating the law to live in a home we own, to drive down certain city streets, to take a vacation without notifying law enforcement, to buy or rent a new home or hold a job without updating the public--all because of a decades-old conviction. All these penalties came to pass after our marriage, and after the birth of our child.

There is no way to appeal it. There is no escaping it. No matter what we do--no matter how well or how long we abide by the laws--we lose more and more rights and freedoms every day. And that loss is based upon pure hysteria and statistical manipulation. The testimony of mental health experts is ignored by politicians and the mainstream media. True recidivism rates are under-reported, or are not reported at all. Even victim advocacy groups and prosecuting attorneys are disregarded when they speak against these punishments. And discussing the consequences of the laws is, apparently, taboo in the public forum.

Some will say it would be shameful to repeal laws intended to protect children. I tell you the recklessness with which hundreds of thousands of innocent American citizens have been triumphantly stripped of their privacy, family, and safety is shameful indeed. Politicians and advocates tell us that such "civil" abuse heaped upon sex offenders is worthy if it saves a single child. By default, they name the pain and loss and endangerment inflicted on other children worthy as well. Shameful indeed.

I don't ask that you welcome us with open arms. We ask for something far more simple: to be left alone, just as we were all those years in which we did nothing wrong under the law. However, if you demand that every offender be eternally punished for his or her past, then show the moral courage to hold yourself accountable for the present.

When you demand offenders be pushed out of your community, say out loud, "and their children should be hounded out of their home, too."

When you demand longer and broader notifications, state bravely, "and I want their children to be shamed whenever they leave their home, to live in terror of vigilante violence forever."

When you demand offenders be banned from schools, proclaim as well, "and I want their children to be mocked and beaten by their classmates, to never have a friend."

When you demand the government step in to 'protect the children,' say to the offender's child, "But you I will purposefully endanger. Your family I will destroy, and claim its destruction as my victory."

When you demand an offender be again punished for a decades-old crime, at least have the decency to say you're willing to inflict certain damage on thousands of children in exchange for the many-times disproved promise of better security for yours.

Don't like the way that sounds? Neither do we. But you have the option of turning away, of ignoring it, of justifying it with sound bites. We don't. We live according to the whims of civil madmen every day.

The Ocho , Posted by Robert Paisola

Eight more proposed Utah laws besides a ban on free Wi-Fi service to protect The Children from porn and other bad content

From the SL Weekly by Mr. Bill Frost

8. Block the letters “F,” “U,” “C” and “K” from cell-phone texting, as well as the winking symbol “; )”.

7. Additionally, drunk texting will carry stiffer penalties than DUI.

6. Mandatory heat shields to be installed on the bottoms of all laptops sold to minors.

5. Shut down blogs containing subversive propaganda and salacious material—in other words, all the good ones.

4. Place a two-week delay on instant messaging so all exchanges can first be reviewed by the state’s new IM Czar.

3. Institute a five-day waiting period for BlackBerry purchases.

2. And a zero-tolerance policy against “hands-free” Bluetooth abuse.

1. Form a task force to investigate the burgeoning underground Pager Porn network.

Moderators Note:

We openly salute the position that Bill Frost has made in this writing. We truly believe that offenders, especially youth and adult sex offenders CAN be rehabilitated. We believe that were it not for forums such as this, that lawmakers WOULD create twenty five year retroactive registration requirements apply to any offense that remotely represents sexual offender conduct. Thanks Bill Frost, for leveling the playing field and KNOWING that CHANGE IS POSSIBLE !

Branded....., Posted by Robert Paisola

Not so long ago, the law granted underage sex offenders a turn at treatment and a second chance. But new federal punishment guidelines could tarnish them with a permanent criminal record.

From the SL Weekly by Mr. Eric Peterson

Shaun is an average Utah college kid in his early 20s. He juggles his chemistry studies, a 40-hour workweek, a girlfriend and a dog. He keeps up a frantic pace with youthful stride and optimism, all the while looking eagerly toward the future.

He had planned on a pre-med major but has shifted to a career in medical research instead. It will mean more classes, labs and bookwork, but Shaun has always been determined. Like other students, he started college in his late teens. But there, the similarity ends.

Shaun started working on his associate’s degree while locked up in a secure facility for juvenile offenders. At age 15, Shaun raped an older woman. He was adjudicated (juvenile justice parlance for “found guilty”) and sent to lockup, where he spent the next three years in intensive treatment, confronting the demons that haunted his childhood.

“I guess I had good memories as a kid, even though I was an angry kid … always hurting,” said Shaun, who asked that his real name not be used. He pauses, and then retracts. “I guess, though, I never was a kid. I always felt robbed of my childhood.”

Shaun can look back now on his former self as a shadow of the man he’s become but still remembers the dark days of his youth: a lockdown of the heart and mind that spurred him to sexual violence against another. “To hurt someone else, you have to change so much in your mind,” he says. “There are so many little mechanisms you create in your mind. You convince yourself that they deserve it. It’s sick, I know, but when I hurt her, I didn’t think I did anything wrong. The more bull—-t you create to make it OK, the more you have to wade through to get out of it.”

Shaun hated therapy at first. He hated how his counselors made him confront his dark urges. But now as a rehabilitated man, he speaks of treatment as his saving grace.
“I really grew up in treatment,” Shaun says, “I miss it almost, that’s my family. They helped me so much. It was only three years, but without those three years, I guarantee I wouldn’t be the man I am today.”

The potential for most juvenile sex offenders to conquer their demons and become normal, productive adults can, with treatment, be promising. One of Shaun’s primary therapists feels comfortable endorsing his recovery. “It is an incredible and humbling experience to stand alongside an individual who faces the horrible truth about what he’s done and, by so doing, develops the capacity to love and to be loved,’’ she says.

His therapist wholly supports treatment for juvenile sex offenders, but is watching with concern recent efforts to crack down on juveniles in this arena. Increasingly, politicians are taking a “throw the book at them” approach to violent juvenile crime. It isn’t completely without cause: high-profile cases involving violent juvenile offenders seem to pop up weekly.

The latest reaction to the problem comes by way of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, sponsored by U.S. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. The act, which President George W. Bush signed into law last year, widens the scope of punishment for juvenile sex offenders more than ever before. By lumping juveniles into the same criminal categories as adult sex offenders, the act establishes a sex offender registry that could keep even the strongest examples of rehabilitation—like Shaun—branded as criminals forever.

Experts who work with troubled youngsters are asking if this law might not be going way too far.

To Crack Down or CoddleSex crimes against children conjure up the worst fears of a society. But, when the predator in these cases is another child, the crime confounds expectations of wrong and right, good and evil. Historically, children haven’t been held to as high a legal standard as adults. Yet, when a child commits such a horrific crime, punishment must be meted out. How tough should it be?

Juvenile justice has always been about second chances. Laws were written to give the offender a chance to rehabilitate while keeping the criminal record sealed from public view. But, under the provisions of Hatch’s Walsh Act, certain juvenile sex offenders will now be subject to the same strict punishment as adult offenders.

This means juvenile offenders 14 years and older, if adjudicated, will be required to register with a national sex-offender registry every three months and every time they change their name, address, student status or employment—for the rest of their lives. The mandatory punishment for failure to register under any of these circumstances could result in one-to-five years' prison time for an adult or secure confinement for a juvenile. With a clean record, a juvenile could get off the registry after 25 years of compliance. The act even may be retroactively applied. People like Shaun who accepted their punishment, took responsibility for their crime and completed treatment may land on the database. Under the old system, that result was unfathomable.
For a long time, the attitude toward juvenile crime has been forgiving, a sense of “they’re kids. They can change.” For critics, however, this “tough love” approach fails to account for the growing number of hardened, violent juvenile criminals. It just doesn’t work anymore, they contend.

While overall juvenile offenses may be down, in Utah, they seem to spike in more grievous areas: in 2005, juvenile rape arrest rates shot up 105 percent from 2004. These numbers reflect headline-grabbing stories like that of 17-year-old Robert Cameron Houston, sentenced this month to life without parole for the rape and murder of Raechale Elton, 22, a youth counselor of a Clearfield home for troubled teens. On a snowy night in February 2006, Elton gave Houston, a resident of the home, a ride home. Houston sexually assaulted Elton and repeatedly slashed her throat.

The sheer brutality of the of crime cemented in the minds of many that the youths simply don’t deserve a second chance. But critics of Hatch’s bill and other similar “get-tough” efforts, consider them political slam-dunks—written for big campaign mileage and passed before their full impact is realized.

To Protect the ChildrenProsecution of juveniles was not the thrust of the 2006 Walsh Act. Its main target was adult offenders who had slipped through the cracks of the system and taken advantage of state-to-state inconsistencies in sex-offender laws. Motivated by a number of well-publicized kidnappings, including the 2002 Elizabeth Smart case, Hatch wanted all states to participate in a uniform national database, stipulating across-the-board punishments for those who failed to register with the system.

The legislation was well-celebrated, and dictated a three-year period for states to integrate into the national database. The federal act set guidelines for states to follow but sentencing and other specifics were left to state legislatures.

Earlier this spring, experts in juvenile crime gathered at the University of Utah law school to discuss the Walsh Act and its effects in Utah. The panel included prosecutors, defense attorneys and social workers. While waiting for the forum to start, the panelists cracked jokes and casually talked shop. Underneath their ease, however, a tension persisted. This group was made up of professionals from varied backgrounds and political perspectives, each of whom expressed doubts and fears over how the law might change life for Utah’s juvenile offenders.

Jacey Skinner, a deputy district attorney for Salt Lake County, expressed concern over how the law could change the nature of juvenile courts.

“They [juveniles] will be on a registry, and that is a very adult publication, whereas the whole nature of juvenile court is that records are sealed, this isn’t public information. The point is that we want to rehabilitate them so they can become normal, productive adults,” Skinner said, explaining that if juvenile offenders now know that admitting guilt will mean being on a registry for life, they will be much less likely to voluntarily admit guilt and seek rehabilitation.
“Now, if you have this new sanction that’s going to follow you for the rest of your life, it’s not going to be easy to say, "All right, I accept these consequences, and I want to get myself into treatment,’” Skinner said. Previously, Utah’s juvenile courts avoided trials when it was likely the defendant would admit guilt and get started on rehabilitation. Harsher consequences are sure to gridlock the courts with longer trials and competency hearings.

“There’s a big debate whether juveniles can even be considered competent,” Skinner said, explaining that competency—the idea that a person is capable of understanding the nature of a crime, and taking part in his or her defense with an attorney—will be a bigger issue in juvenile courts.

Not only do these factors bog down the system; they also compound the grief and stress put upon the families of the victim and perpetrator. “Inevitably with juvenile cases, families are involved, and it’s always hard for them,” Skinner says.

Law-enforcement experts, however, make a public-safety argument. The threat of offenders repeating violent crimes, they say, outweighs other considerations.

Police Lt. Darin Durfey, head of the Utah County Sex Crimes Task Force, believes the current system is not working, given the recent explosion in juvenile sex offender arrests. “If you look at the national trend, the largest percentage increase in offenders are juvenile, as far as sex crimes go,” Durfey said, describing the situation as an “epidemic.” Juvenile courts have grown too lenient on young offenders, who then go on to repeat their crimes. Had juveniles under previous law been subject to more supervision, they might have been less likely to inflict sexual violence again, he said.

The risk factor of offenders striking again is enough to warrant putting juveniles on the registry, he says. According to the law, only the most dangerous juveniles or those who commit offenses “comparable to, or more severe than, aggravated sexual abuse” would end up there.
Durfey argues that perpetrators need to be more closely monitored, not just sent off to court-ordered therapy. The horrific nature of some of these crimes contradicts the notion of judicial mercy, even for juveniles.

The events of March 21 of this year support Durfey’s thesis. According to The Daily Herald in Provo, it was in the fruit orchards of the small Utah County town of Genola that a 13-year-old girl stumbled on a couple farmers burning weeds in a ditch. They found the girl hysterical, her face pale, blood pouring from knife slashes crisscrossing her neck. Police reported she had survived an attack by a 14-year-old boy. His crime ignited fear in the community and renewed talk about tough punishment for even the youngest criminals.

The Mind of a Sex OffenderDr. Peter Byrne, director of the Monarch Assessment and Treatment Center in Salt Lake City, works daily with sex offenders. He will be the first to tell you how dangerous his patients’ inclinations are. But he also believes society’s reaction is often overblown. “We seem to be caught in a current phase of get-tough legislation that makes a politician look good, but no one checks out how well it’s going to work, or how much its going to cost,” Byrne says.

For most therapists, any argument for changing juvenile-offender law should first consider what goes on in a child’s brain.

Dr. Michelle Gourley, licensed clinical social worker, holds a law degree and is co-owner of Choicepoint Therapeutic Services in Salt Lake City. The mind of a juvenile sex offender she says, differs vastly from that of the adult criminal. “Studies suggest that youths don’t put facts together and draw conclusions the way adults do,” Gourley says. “Even if they perceived a situation as risky or morally wrong, they wouldn’t necessarily have the ability to act on that awareness.” Gourley cites neurological studies showing that a young person’s cerebral cortex is not yet fully developed. The juvenile brain is malleable; it still can be shaped and corrected.
This explains why juvenile rates of recidivism (or rates of repeating a sexual offense) are drastically lower than rates for adult offenders. Gourley cites statistics from the Association for the Treatment of Sex Abusers, an international nonprofit research group that shows recidivism rates for adult offenders who have completed treatment is 32 to 51 percent. Even after treatment, as many as half of all adults reoffend. “But for juveniles, based on the most long-term study done in the nation … recidivism rates are between 6 and 14 percent. This suggests that the majority of youth who engage in sexual misconduct are not going to sexually reoffend,” says Gourley.

Gourley says juveniles’ violent impulses are generally related to traumatic abuse, but they don’t always lash out sexually against others in response to being sexually abused. They are more likely to commit sexual offenses as a reaction to physical abuse or after witnessing domestic violence.

Even if the juvenile suffered an upbringing so devastatingly traumatic that it instilled some impulse toward sexual predation, Gourley contends the brain is still developing and can be corrected.

Both Gourley and Byrne emphasize the law already has a way to pick out the most dangerous juvenile offenders: the practice of assessing minors to be tried legally as adults. Byrne recalls working on the case of a 14-year-old who had committed an especially heinous rape and assault. After a careful analysis, he concluded that, despite the boy’s age, the brutality of his crimes meant he should be tried and treated as an adult. This allows juvenile offenders who pose a true danger to public safety to be assessed case-by-case and treated as adults.

Utah’s Economic BindDespite the negative consequences of the Walsh Act, the state is in a tough spot as to what it can actually do. According to the law, by July 1, 2009, every state that fails to comply with the law could lose federal funding for juvenile-treatment programs. Former 3rd District Juvenile Court Judge Robert Yeates has been following the act closely. Now executive director of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, Yeates estimates the state of Utah could lose about $110,000 a year.

In his office at the state Capitol, Yeates shuffles through paperwork piled on his desk—leftover research of a new state sex-offender law that he pored over for two full weeks. Yeates has been anxious about the Walsh Act, but his concern is based more on decades of experience as a juvenile court judge and is not necessarily representative of the Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice.

He sees the Walsh Act as vital legislation for adult offenders, but not juveniles.
Beyond the loss of federal funding, Yeates cites another risk: “I have a concern that if Utah did not pass the act, are we then going to have an influx of juvenile offenders coming here? I don’t want Utah to become a haven for juvenile sex offenders.”

A compromise might be to create a new standard of assessment for juvenile offenders and raise the age threshold for registration from 14 to 16. “Those offenders would only have to register if they were evaluated as presenting an ongoing high risk and were unresponsive to treatment. Then I would require them to register under the act. At least they would have the opportunity to get treatment and get their act together. If they were then unresponsive to treatment, they should be on the register,” Yeates says.

A veteran of tough legal wrangling and puzzles of policy, Yeates considers his solution with cautious optimism but notes with some resignation: “I guess it’s all somewhat academic; the act has passed.”

From the perspective of one who has journeyed from troubled youth to recovered adulthood, Shaun believes the act could further alienate juvenile offenders. He prides himself on his “emotional vulnerability,” to let down his guard and “to connect emotionally with people.
“[When you do that] you gain their strength, and they gain your strength. I think it’s the single greatest tool to keep you from harming someone. But it’s easy not to feel the worth of someone if you can’t connect with them,” Shaun says.

Ultimately, registering these juveniles as sex offenders may make them easier to monitor. But will the law forsake rehabilitating the child in favor of maintaining closer scrutiny? By branding someone a “predator,” will healing and redemption be sacrificed in order to calm the fears of society? These are the questions that linger in a debate obscured by impassioned rhetoric on both sides.

For Shaun though, it’s simple. “My goals aren’t lofty,” he says. “I just want to be happy.”

Moderators Note:

This article is being posted from a series of articles being written on Sex Offender Legislation that is currently pending. We at Western Capital support the reformation of Criminal Offenders and to force a child to be placed on a Sex Offender Registry for 25 years goes completely against the goal of reformation that we so openly believe in and teach. Society must look at the totality of the crimes that have been comitted by these juveniles and give them the HOPE that they need and deserve to overcome their past, just like adult offenders. We will continue to publish this series in its entirety so that our readers can see the difficult problems being faced by law makers as they address this sticky issue.

Regards,

Robert Paisola

CEO

Western Capital

www.westerncapitalfoundation.com