Archive for September 13, 2009

Parole House Won’t Accept Sex Offenders

September 13, 2009 Comments off : State Division of Parole Bissonette House says sex offender isn’t welcome.

Even though a judge named Bissonette House as a possible location for McKinney, its program director said the home for paroled men hasn’t changed its policy of not accepting sex offenders.

“State Parole and Bissonette House work very closely together. They know we don’t take sex offenders,” Thom Piniewski said.

The reason for that is because the facility is a short distance from a school for disabled children. The state has a rule that a paroled sex offender cannot live within 1,000 feet of a school. “The last thing I would want is people thinking we take sex offenders,” Piniewski said. “It would make the neighbors uncomfortable.”

If a home for paroled convicts won’t accept ex sex offenders, then where would you like them to live? In a rural motel with less therapy, support and more isolation? These factors would only increase any likelihood of recidivism.

Amy Borror SORNA Testimony Before Congress

September 13, 2009 Comments off

United States House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

Hearing on the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)
a.k.a. Adam Walsh Act law
Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Written Testimony
of :
Amy Borror
Public Information Officer
Office of the Ohio Public Defender

“No” to Sex Offender Registry

September 13, 2009 Comments off (Singapore) : “No” to Sex Offender Registry.

(note: Singapore is known world-wide for having one of the most strict legal systems)

Is creating a registry of sex offenders an infringement of human rights and personal dignity? Are we depriving them of a second chance in life, instead opening the floodgates for discrimination?

The call for sex offender registry should not have materialised.

We should follow in spirit of the Yellow Ribbon project, which humanises all offenders and advocates the casting aside of prejudices. While rehabilitation of ex-offenders may be hard work for a society so driven by success and pragmatism, this should not deter our society from steering towards one of compassion and inclusiveness.

Having a sex offender registry would efface efforts to mould a more tolerating populace. Imagine the discrimination thrust upon those whose names surface in the registry; Their dignity and privacy would be robbed. On the other hand, those who lobby for a sex offender registry argue that victims of sexual abuse their privacy and dignity as well.

Cliché as it sounds, the old adage soundly reminds us: “an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.” Voltaire speaks of how although truth should prevail, forgiveness is still necessary: “love truth, but pardon error.” This should govern our treatment towards everyone, if not, at least these offenders.

Regardless of the hurt that may befall on us, we should not be swayed and succumb to being vindictive. To some, I may be riding on moral high horse and espousing ineffable ideals. Yet, it is noteworthy that all religion alike repeatedly exhorts us to love, forgiveness and peace.

With a great multitude of agencies that come into contact with children, the names of the sex offenders would be circulated and revealed to a great amount of people. This negates the initial intention of restricting the sex offender registry to a small group.

As a result, the intrusion of privacy is a violation of human rights in itself. Sex offenders may have violated the law, but as much as they should be punished, to have a sex offender registry is insidiously biased against them. In fact, the sex offender registry increases the chances of exploitation through, to name just one, attacks hurled at those in the list.

The United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone should have the right to life, liberty and security of person” and having a sex offender registry would blatantly contravene it. With all his past records and personal details revealed to the public, his personal security would be undermined.

Instead of using a sex offender registry to provide a safety net for the children, punitive actions such as stricter laws coupled with therapy that has been proved useful should be applied. Behaviour modification programs have been shown to effectively reduce recidivism in sex offenders by 15-18% [ii].

Therefore, it kills two birds with one stone. Not only do stricter laws serve as a credible deterrence, therapy aligns with the aim of Singapore Prison Service to “Rehab, Renew, Restart.”

Teh Joon Lin’s article mentions that “although “moderate” and “high-risks” sex offenders are placed in treatment programmes, the “low-risks” are not. Of the “low-risk” group who did not go through the programme, 6.9 per cent of those released between 2001 and 2006 were re-arrested within two years.” It is time to reassess the grouping criteria and provide an alternate treatment for those in the “low-risk” as well.

The implementation of a sex offender registry as a precautionary measure is to violate the very notion of human rights it purports to protect. The alternative of therapy minimises cases of re-arrests and also inculcates a spirit of humanity.

Why then should we risk encroaching the rights of others when other methods of prevention could be undertaken?