Quoted Text

Towns mull initiative on offender issue Supervisors plan to discuss alternatives
BY MICHAEL LAMENDOLA Gazette Reporter

   A majority of town supervisors oppose proposed changes to county laws that restrict where sex offenders may live and are considering their own initiatives.
   The supervisors said they plan to meet next week to discuss alternatives to the county laws. They would present their proposal to the Schenectady County Legislature.
   Three of five supervisors contacted by The Daily Gazette termed changes proposed by Democrats in the county Legislature unsatisfactory and inadequate in addressing their major concerns.
   “I talked to all of the supervisors and not one of them said the changes were close to satisfying their concerns,” Niskayuna Supervisor Luke Smith, a Democrat, said on Thursday.
   Majority Democrats in the Legislature plan to repeal one law that will evict sex offenders residing within 2,000-foot exclusion zones after Oct. 1. The legislators also plan to make other changes to remove Level 1 offenders from the restrictions and to grant towns the ability to impose more stringent exclusion zones.
   The proposals are expected to be offered in the form of a notice of public hearing at Tuesday’s county Legislature meeting. A public hearing is necessary before the laws can be amended.
   Glenville Supervisor Frank Quinn, a Democrat, said the proposed changes are “[not] really getting at the issue and managing it better.” Supervisors remain concerned the county legislation will force convicted sex offenders underground to find affordable housing. Under state law they must report their addresses.
   “That’s why the five town supervisors are gagging on this,” Quinn said.
   Smith agreed, adding: “Even if I accept [legislators] acted with totally honorable motivations, and there are not too many people who believe that, I believe the legislation will drive people underground and it will hurt children.”
   Rotterdam Supervisor Steven Tommasone, a Republican, said making amendments does very little. “The bottom line is that this legislation was put together hastily.”
   He said the Democratic majority in the county Legislature “acted in a politically expedient way and obviously it did not work for them. This is a clear example of what not to do to get town supervisors and the county Legislature to act together.”
MAJOR DISTRACTION
   County Legislator Vincent DiCerbo, D-Schenectady, said he is in favor of repealing both laws. He voted for the original laws, but now believes he made a mistake.
   “It has become an 800-pound elephant in the room and is a real distraction for us. Our main goal has been economic development and this whole issue has transformed the debate,” DiCerbo said.
   He said the county should “pull back, talk to the supervisors, police chiefs, the district attorney and the sheriff, and look at what other counties have done. We should take our time and do something effective and which has broad community support. It is clear this piece of legislation is divisive.”
   Democratic leaders in the Legislature scheduled a meeting with the five supervisors for 10 a.m. today to discuss the changes before Tuesday’s meeting. However, only one supervisor, Muriel Peterson of Princetown, is expected to attend. The other four have prior commitments, they said. Supervisor Rene J. Merrihew of Duanesburg has also expressed opposition.
   Smith said the supervisors want to take a comprehensive approach to the issue. “If the issue the county is afraid of is the white van picking up kids off the street, then we have to address the serious sexual predator,” he said. “I’m not even sure who they are trying to protect us from. This is just fueling hysteria. It started as feel-good legislation and now the legislators have got caught up in it. It is ridiculous how they are doing this.”
   County officials said they researched the legislation by reviewing what other states did to restrict where sex offenders could live, but admitted they did not speak with local experts, including local law enforcement officials, before enacting the legislation June 12.
   In a July 8 viewpoint article in The Sunday Gazette, County Legislature Chairwoman Susan Savage, D-Niskayuna, said the county enacted the laws because it “has come under increasing pressure to take more and more sex offenders being released from the state prison system. We have been contacted on several occasions to accept between 25 and 50 sex offenders scheduled for release from state prison. Although we have been successful in convincing state authorities that we are not equipped to handle more sexual predators, this situation has become increasingly difficult.”
   The source of this information is unknown. Savage was not available for comment.
   Quinn said the “real answer is to get people who do this for a living to come up with recommendations on how to deal with all the issues.”
   Legislators have to “talk to police, probation, parole, the district attorney and the mental health community about the issue. Don’t put nine politicians in a room to find answers,” Smith said.
   Tommasone said the state needs to deal with the issue, not local governments. “Drawing circles on the map does not help anyone. We need to send a clear message to the county and the state that more must be done. We need stricter laws, stricter penalties. We need to aid local law enforcement with notifi cation and registration.”  

Quoted Text

By my count, we are approaching a majority of Legislators who either oppose the laws and/or who have expressed a desire to revise them.  The following votes for the rescission and/or revision of the laws may result in the will of the public being served:

Carolina Lazzari (opposed passage)
Michael Eidens (opposed passage)
Karen Johnson (opposed passage)
Joseph Suhrada (expressed second thoughts)
Robert Farley (expressed second thoughts)
Tony Jasenski (expressed second thoughts)
James Buhrmaster (absent for vote)

That's 7 of 15 votes.... We need one more for a majority...  Could the additional vote come from the sponsor
of the legislation, Mr. Kosiur, himself?

Quoted Text

County Legislator Vincent DiCerbo, D-Schenectady, said he is in favor of repealing both laws. He voted for the original laws, but now believes he made a mistake.

Quoted Text

Jessica's Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
It has been suggested that Jessica Lunsford Act be merged into this article or section. (Discuss) This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page or replace this tag with a more specific message.
This article has been tagged since June 2007.

Jessica's Law is the informal name given to a 2005 Florida law designed to punish child molesters and reduce their ability to re-offend. A version of Jessica's Law has been introduced on the federal level, known as the Jessica Lunsford Act.

The law is named after Jessica Lunsford, a young Florida girl who was raped and murdered in February 2005 by John Couey, a previously convicted sex offender. Public outrage over this case spurred Florida officials to introduce this legislation. Among the key provisions of the law are a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison[1] and lifetime electronic monitoring[2] of adults convicted of lewd or lascivious acts against a victim less than 12 years old. In Florida, sexual battery or rape of a child less than twelve years old is a capital felony, punishable only by death or life imprisonment with no chance of parole.[3]

Contents [hide]
1 As national precedent
2 In the media
3 Arguments for and against
4 References
5 External links



[edit] As national precedent
Jessica's Law is also used to designate all legislation and potential legislation in other states modeled after the Florida law. Forty-two states have introduced such legislation since Florida's law was passed. [citation needed]


[edit] In the media
John Walsh of America's Most Wanted and Bill O'Reilly of The O'Reilly Factor have been vocal proponents of Jessica's Law.[citation needed]


[edit] Arguments for and against
This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.

Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.

In California, Jessica's Law was on the ballot in the November 2006 election as Proposition 83 and it passed with over 70 percent of the vote. It was sponsored by husband and wife legislators California State Senator George Runner (R-Antelope Valley) and State Assemblywoman Sharon Runner (R-Antelope Valley). It has been opposed by State Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) who explained that he was concerned that the 2000-foot "no-live" zone around schools and parks would be unenforceable or push sex offenders from urban to rural areas. State senate president pro tempore Don Perata (D-Oakland) has said that the proposition was "thrown together without sufficient care." The initiative was supported by a majority in every county with the exception of San Francisco.

The majority of the initiative deals with increased penalties for sex offenders, elimination of good time credits for early release, making simple possession of child pornography a felony, and establishing a lifelong GPS monitoring of High Risk Sex Offenders.[citation needed]

Another criticism is that the restrictions would cause problems with securing employment and finding a place of residence.

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice [4] (criminal defense attorneys association) opposed Proposition 83 and wrote the opposing argument for the ballot and voter pamphlet.

California's Attorney General has pledged to uphold the new law.


[edit] References
^ [1]
^ [2]
^ [3]

[edit] External links
Florida House Bill 1877 The text of the enrolled version of Jessica's Law passed in Florida.
Jessica's Law 2006 An organization supporting passage of this law.
Controlling Sex Offender Reentry Article by Jason Peckenpaugh and Professor Joan Petersilia of California Prison Reform.
CA Capitol Weekly: Jessica's law no-live zone is a bone of political contention
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault Opposition Statement to Proposition 83
Don't sign Jessica's law American Chronicle article critical of Jessica's law.
information website An information website explaining problems with proposition 83 (California's Jessica's Law)
Sexual abuse treatment group
Restricted Areas for Sex Offenders in California
http://www.rutherford.org/Oldspeak/Articles/Law/oldspeak-sexregistries.asp Sex-Offender Registries: Public Safety or Public Hazard?
http://www.billoreilly.com/outragefunnels;jsessionid=E2CC4DF9105013DFE00CCC2F1 Bill O'Reilly's support for Jessica's Law
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica%27s_Law"

Quoted Text

In a July 8 viewpoint article in The Sunday Gazette, County Legislature Chairwoman Susan Savage, D-Niskayuna, said the county enacted the laws because it “has come under increasing pressure to take more and more sex offenders being released from the state prison system. We have been contacted on several occasions to accept between 25 and 50 sex offenders scheduled for release from state prison. Although we have been successful in convincing state authorities that we are not equipped to handle more sexual predators, this situation has become increasingly difficult.”
   The source of this information is unknown. Savage was not available for comment.

Quoted Text

The source of this information is unknown. Savage was not available for comment.

Quoted Text

Nazi analogy accurate about sex offender law
REV. WILLIAM L. GRAY Scotia

   In regard to the Aug. 6 letter by Frank Donegan, I was pleased to read that “Sex offender law like Nazis’ ‘Final Solution’ ” is his opinion. I share this opinion and expressed it in a letter to the Schenectady County board, the Glenville Town Board and various other notable officials.
   I would also note that Mr. [Assemblyman George] Amedore said in an article that if elected he would work toward a more gentle law. I would be very interested in finding out what said law is and how it will function, simply because of an article you published that coincided with my thinking on the current faulty law and its small chance of success.  

Quoted Text

County should look at Iowa’s model for help with sex offender law

   The county Legislature should take your advice on their sex offender residency restriction laws [Aug. 8 editorial]. They should start all over again and get the advice of people who are working on the issue. Why not involve the state’s Center for Sex Offender Management and people working in the field?
   Besides the fact that residency restrictions don’t work, Schenectady’s law is too broad. It targets all sex offenders, low risk as well as high; cases of indecent exposure; cases of sex between teenagers, where one is underage; cases where a child was not involved; cases between family members; cases that occurred years ago and where the offender has not re-offended. All are treated the same.
   Why they won’t consider the position taken by prosecuting attorneys in Iowa is beyond me. The attorneys propose: defi ned protected areas (child-safe zones) that sex offenders would be prohibited from entering except in limited and safe circumstances . . . restrictions covering offenses against “children” (under age 14), rather than minors (under 1; . . . assessment of risk by trained persons acting on behalf of the state . . . education on the danger of abuse that may lie within the child’s family and circle of acquaintances . . . creating a sex offender treatment and supervision task force to identify effective strategies to reduce child sex offenses.
   Such measures would do more to protect children and help offenders in their recovery.
JIM MURPHY
Scotia

Quoted Text

I have to wonder if in fact the state gives money to the area in which these sex offenders were sent