TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

Fairness of additions to sex registry questioned



Toolbox

By DAVE GRAM The Associated Press - Published: July 4, 2009

MONTPELIER — Some Vermont sex offenders who thought they had paid their debt to society years ago are expected soon to face a new one — inclusion on the state's online sex offender registry.

A law passed this year expands from about 400 to about 1,600 the number of people included in the registry available for public viewing. Some 740 of the newly listed people will have already completed their terms of probation and parole.

The change is raising questions about whether it's fair for the state effectively to change the terms of a plea deal a criminal defendant entered into years before Vermont considered creating such a registry.

"The individuals aren't getting the benefit of the bargain that they entered into years ago," said Defender General Matthew Valerio, whose office represents defendants in criminal cases.

"Some of these folks have not had recent contact with the DOC (Department of Corrections) but are subject to an electronic registry that didn't even exist at the time," Valerio said.

Georgia Cumming, director of sex offender treatment programs for the department, said some crimes for which people will be placed on the registry likely date from the 1980s. She could not provide exact dates.

Both Valerio and Allen Gilbert, director of the Vermont office of the American Civil Liberties Union, acknowledged that courts in other states and the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled that inclusion on a sex offender registry isn't considered punishment and therefore doesn't violate the constitutional ban on changing the punishment after the crime.

Rather, registries are considered a public-safety tool that enables members of the public to know when a person with a sex-crimes record moves into the neighborhood.

"The courts long ago determined that being on a sex offender registry is not necessarily punishment, and I don't see it as that," said Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington. Sears chairs the Judiciary Committee in the Vermont Senate, which wrote two broad new sex-offender bills passed during the recent legislative session.

Sears said the new law has a provision allowing those soon to be included on the registry to petition for waivers.

Lisa Menard, deputy Corrections commissioner, said nearly one-fifth of the 740 people who are no longer under her department's supervision but are eligible for inclusion had asked for the paperwork by Thursday, the second day the law was in effect. She expects the number to grow by Oct. 1, when the expanded registry is set to "go live" online.

Both Sears and Gilbert said they expect the fairness issue to end up in court. Gilbert said the legal question likely would be not whether the constitutional ban on ex post facto punishments was being violated, but whether the state was violating contracts struck in plea agreements. He said more than 90 percent of sex-crime cases are resolved by plea agreement.

"Each side is supposed to honor the terms of a contract," Gilbert said.

Sears said he wasn't worried about a lawsuit. He said "54,000 Vermonters signed petitions asking for this kind of public policy. I think the Legislature responded to that cry."








READER COMMENTS


Has anyone read the article in this paper Helping young victims recover from abuse??
-- Posted by Angelo None on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, 1:17 pm EST

report this comment



Thanks None None. I always respect and appreciate your input. I'm not sure what elements I'd consider when thinking of a fair, accurate and general definition of "sex offender." It's certainly not easy.
-- Posted by Paul None on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, 1:11 pm EST

report this comment



Paul None, what is your definition of "sex offender?" You are right, not all sexual offenders are rapist. Some come in the form of sexual harassment. Either way the person in still infringing on the rights of others. Here are a few stats on recidivism rates. Recidivism rates for convicted sex offenders vary greatly, ranging from less than 5 percent to more than 50 percent, based on such factors as the victim's gender, the offender's relationship to the victim and whether the offender has received treatment, multiple studies have shown. In general, younger men who abuse boys they don't know have the highest risks of re-offending.
Taken as a group, about 14 percent of convicted sex offenders committed new sex crimes over a five-year period and about 20 percent did so over a 10-year period, according to Canadian researcher Karl Hanson's widely cited review of studies involving more than 4,700 offenders.
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, 12:43 pm EST

report this comment



He, Sen. Richard Sears said "54,000 Vermonters signed petitions asking for this kind of public policy. I think the Legislature responded to that cry."

Why weren't you listening when over 80% of those who voted on the question of civil unions voted against them?
-- Posted by Paul None on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, 11:44 am EST

report this comment



I'm amazed at how willing some people are to define other people entirely by the single worst thing(s) they have done. If you want to label and otherwise categorize folks this way then what possible chance does anyone have to make amends? Why offer treatment if you won't allow offenders the chance to demonstrate that they've learned to change their behavior? Nobody deserves to have their entire being defined by one aspect. "Once a drunk always a drunk." Perhaps, but one DWI doesn't necessarily make a person a drunk. "Once a murderer always a murderer." Yes, that may be true but that doesn't mean this person is a risk to reoffend and if you understood the nature of the offense and the person you might understand that there is much more to this person than this one moment in time might indicate. Think logically people and learn about the psychology behind the behavior and not simply the emotion.
-- Posted by Paul None on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, 11:17 am EST

report this comment



I'm amazed at how willing some people are to define other people entirely by the single worst thing(s) they have done. If you want to label and otherwise categorize folks this way then what possible chance does anyone have to make amends? Why offer treatment if you won't allow offenders the chance to demonstrate that they've learned to change their behavior? Nobody deserves to have their entire being defined by one aspect. "Once a drunk always a drunk." Perhaps, but one DWI doesn't necessarily make a person a drunk. "Once a murderer always a murderer." Yes, that may be true but that doesn't mean this person is a risk to reoffend and if you understood the nature of the offense and the person you might understand that there is much more to this person than this one moment in time might indicate. Think logically people and learn about the psychology behind the behavior and not simply the emotion.
-- Posted by Paul None on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, 11:16 am EST

report this comment



An aspect of this arguement that appears to be omitted so far has to do with how "sex offender" is defined. Not all "sex offenders" are pedophiles. Not all "sex offenders" are rapists. But in the minds of most people all so called "sex offenders" are one or the other. Statistically, most people who commit offenses of a sexual nature rarely reoffend regardless of how they're classified ie: high/low risk. Yes, there are obviosly exceptions to this as we all know, but the point is, not everyone who is convicted of a crime of a sexual nature poses the same level of risk to reoffend against anyone. But as most of the comments here indicate few people make any distinction regarding the nature of the offense, the age or gender of the victim(s), etc. Because of this, I oppose the expansion of the registry.
-- Posted by Paul None on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, 10:49 am EST

report this comment



"Why are so many people against putting the names of sex offenders up onto an online registry. They must be sex offenders who are going to be included on the registry."

Some people are opposed because it runs counter to their basic notions of fairness and democracy. Lists like the one discussed here have historically been a tool of fascist and other repressive totalitarian regimes. If you want to live in a country like Iran, where certain groups of people are isolated, ostracized and exiled from society after they have served their prison time, then these lists are probably a good idea.

I don't think we need to let our guard down as far as protecting our children- seeing as 90% of molestation happens from family members and friends of the family (as in the Bennett case,) don't families know who these offenders are without a list?
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Sun, Jul 5, 2009, 11:37 pm EST

report this comment



Maybe there is a concern for harassment!!!
-- Posted by None Ya on Sun, Jul 5, 2009, 11:20 pm EST

report this comment



I guess as long as we all realize that when you use your own name on your posts the pages, are indexed with google. Therefore anyone doing a google search will have all the pages come up with there lovely posts. Dont type you name onto anything you dont mind people searching your name on google and having the post come up. Especially on a high page rank site like this one.
-- Posted by ok then on Sun, Jul 5, 2009, 8:17 pm EST

report this comment



truth real you are right as far as the plea deals go,,then and the plea deals that on now,,,
Olde Man I can't give you a last name,,no I'am not protecting this pr--k,,however the Judge's name is David Howard,,,add Amy Davenport's name to his,,,,
-- Posted by Angelo None on Sun, Jul 5, 2009, 6:39 pm EST

report this comment



"Fairness of additions to sex registry questioned"

WHY? i see a lot of posts that question whether or not plea bargains of the past should be nullified.

OK. my question is: what were these perps pleading a lesser punishment to? I would be willing to bet that most of them got off pretty damn easy, AS USUAL, back then. even more so than now, as scary as that sounds.

SO SHUTUP IF YOU ARE A SEX OFFENDER. and FiretrUCK off!

.
-- Posted by truth real on Sun, Jul 5, 2009, 5:10 pm EST

report this comment



Angelo - Why are YOU protecting "Jim" ?? Why not use his real name. Convictions are public information. So is the name of the judge.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Sun, Jul 5, 2009, 5:08 pm EST

report this comment



If the public in Manchester Vermont knew Jim{withheld} was a Pedophile maybe they would have watched Jim closer. He was
arrested for the third time for child molestation,,of a 6 year old boy,,went before the Judge got a suspended sentence
and a $22.00 fine,,this child is going to be messed up for life,,After the 2nd arrest what was Jim doing out of Prison?
This Judge should be removed from the Bench,,,
-- Posted by Angelo None on Sun, Jul 5, 2009, 4:23 pm EST

report this comment



Ya thats true however told you they were never convicted of a sex crime and got a notice saying they were going up on the registry wrongly is prolly full of it.
-- Posted by ok then on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 11:02 pm EST

report this comment



BARREHELP: You received the wrong information !! People are NOT, repeat NOT, put on the sex offender registry unless they are CONVICTED of certain sexual offenses.

.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 10:30 pm EST

report this comment



It wouldnt suprise me if the state is making people do there time before the charges are brought. The more incident reports and the more full jail beds the more money they get. The more of a need to rehabilitate. I am sure that at least 50% of allegations that are made are false. However in the state of Vermont all they need is a false allegation, they call it probable cause.
Unfortunely we live in country where you **** someone off bad enough they can put you away for a long time regardless of weather you did something wrong or not. All they have to do is make up a good story and you go by by.
To make a long story short. If someone has been charged with a crime they are guilty until proven innocent. Whoever thinks that anyone is innocent until proven guilty is obviously not up on the lastest criminal proceedures. If you have been charged with a crime you have about as much rights as a detainee in guantanamo.
-- Posted by ok then on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 9:24 pm EST

report this comment



The problem with this is that I know someone who had allegations made against them, step daughter who hated step father. He has not gone to court, not been found guilty, but based on DCF report he received a letter that they are putting him on the sex offender registry. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? This is an example of what is wrong with our system.
-- Posted by BARREHELP on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 8:29 pm EST

report this comment



Why are so many people against putting the names of sex offenders up onto an online registry. They must be sex offenders who are going to be included on the registry. I would have to say that if someone commits a sex crime they should never get out of jail. What they are doing living on the streets 10 years after the crime was commited is beyond me. They should be lucky they are not in jail.
All the registry is for is to inform people that someone has been convicted of a sex crime in the past. I think its a good idea to have a registry to check to see if someone has been convicted of a sex crime. Because without it we would have never known.
-- Posted by ok then on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 7:13 pm EST

report this comment



A word on child molesters:

Some molesters want to change and do well in treatment. Treatment reduces risk but doesn't eliminate it.

Some molesters don't want to change and will game the system and walk through treatment telling everyone what they want to hear. They're not stupid. They're predators.

Some molesters want to change and try in treatment but can't change. Like a smoker that tries to quit but goes back to smoking. They can't control themselves even if they try their best.


That's what is out there for sex offenders. Too bad the Department of Corrections cut some of the very positions that supervise them. It's all about the budget folks.


.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 4:05 pm EST

report this comment



This has nothing to do with the Statute Of Limitations or the Church,,it has everything to do with The Letter of the Law and how the Sex Offenders do not like how Vermont is going to add them to the Sex Offender Registry,,No doubt,,when
they went to prison Vermont was very soft on sex offenders
now that there are new laws they donot like it,,,The Registry is not going to guarantee that they will not re-offend, however we will know who is living in our Neighbor-
hood,,,and it also no guarantee that after 10 years someone will not re-offend,,Parents should be resonsbile and talk to their children about these Predators as Lea said,,The Letter of the Law should stand,,Sears gave them a way out,,
We need to keep our Children safe,,,
-- Posted by Angelo None on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 3:29 pm EST

report this comment



The truth is the sex registry cannot guarantee a party will not reoffend, but surely after ten or more years without a re offense, one would think that subject is fairly low risk.

Offenses trailing back to the eighties seems to me similar to charging the Catholic Diocese 40 years later for poor supervision of predator priests. We know the motive is money for attorneys and alleged victims. We should respect the statute of limitations because fairness in any trial is skewed hopelessly toward the plantiff with time and bad memories, and witnesses dead.
-- Posted by Joshua Bernstein on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 12:23 pm EST

report this comment



People are truly deceiving themselves if they presume that a name on a "list" is going to protect their children. What will SURELY protect children is supervision of them ... where are they, what are they doing, -- in other words .. PROPER PARENTING!! There are far too many people who have NOT been convicted - but are just as apt to violate young people without their names being "listed". It's not who lives in your neighborhood that ought to be a primary concern .. it is knowing where your children are and what they are doing. It's a lot of hard work, this proper parenting thing --- but it is that hard work that will help keep your children safe (regardless of who lives where). Knowing someone's name is on a list can far too easily give a false sense of security ... knowing with whom your children are spending time, what bothers them, what questions they have, who are their friends, what are their fears .... these are the things that will help protect our neighborhoods.
-- Posted by Lea Hatch on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 11:05 am EST

report this comment



What about the life long punishment of the victim??? Lets keep protecting the Perp. Once the sex offender is caught
lets send him to Pedaphile U. in prison,,yeah the D.O.C. and
or some Church Groups could place him in our neighborhood without us knowing,,just like they did with a repeat offender,,,in Montplier,a place to live on School Street,,
when this guy was arrested, he had violated 13 children,,
where are their rights,,13 children that will be right for life because of the broken system,,The A.C.L.U. wasnot there to help these 13 children,,Senator Sears isn't there
to help any Child in Vermont,,I was there when people testified that Vermont needs to expand the registry,,we need to know and have a right to know who lives in our neighborhoods,,,Treatment doesnot work,,The Department of Corrections will tell it does,,reason behind that is the D.O.C. watchs over the sex offender,,and they can't do it
that is called job security,,,The system was broke before Brooke Bennett died, and the system is still broken,,The Lawmakers of Vermont are still kicking our Children to the side of the road like they are dead animals,,This is the Law to open the Registry,,Judges should rule the letter of the Law,,not make Laws,,,Propect the CHILDREN
-- Posted by Angelo None on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 10:55 am EST

report this comment



That's true, it's all public knowledge, so it should all be published. DUI, DWI, murderers, drug convictions, peeping toms, people who fail to pay their property taxes (which , by the way is in most Town Reports) and the list goes on and on... why shouldn't all of these folks be included in the publishing of convictions? The posting of past crimes...just as you say, they are not being charged with a new crimes , should happen across the board...addresses and all...that way I can say I don't want a convicted murderer in my neighborhood or a convicted drunk living and driving amongst my kids..
See..it's so easy to label, why not just do it?
I, of course, am being totally ridiculous.... it's a stupid idea that flys in the face of the constitutional concept of paying your dues to society. Published lists of presumably reformed criminals is very Nazi like...and has been done...
What's next, citizen gangs? Fag hunts? Maybe that hetero registry would be helpful to you AYK....you sound like you have crosses to burn..
-- Posted by CJ maloney on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 8:05 am EST

report this comment



Cj, I am surprised with your liberal idealogy and fairness to eveyone you think like that...maybe a gay and hetero registry is in order next. Get off your high horse and arrogance, what do you have to be so proud about???
Then we can see who's what and where they live. Not all crime and not all people are dumped and categorized. In this country crime and punishments and law breakers all have a system (not always fair) but its the systme we have. Or else everyone that breaks the law is thrown injail forever or executed. Besides, as strict as you are, Barry Obama wouldnt be president after his cocaine days if the laws werent forgiving,
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 6:38 am EST

report this comment



No one is being charged a new crime, just publicly posting past crimes which are already available to the public by law. Registry just puts it all in a nice tidy list same as DMV concept. All motor vehicle violations are lsited under the name, well same as sex offender registry, all sex crimes listed with persons name and address, only difference.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 6:31 am EST

report this comment



Justice being what it is these days, you would think that at least any agreement would be honored..it's like having one of the hunters convicted of involuntary manslaughter do his time and then, years later, get hauled in and re-sentenced to death because the law changed..
Weirdness..!
By the way..I'm all in favor of a DWI, drug dealer and murder registry..once a drunk, always a drunk, one a murderer, always a murderer...wouldn't you like to know who's moving near you?
-- Posted by CJ maloney on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 5:58 am EST

report this comment



Fairness? How about letting the offenders from the 80's and 90's be allowed to go back to court and withdraw their plea agreements and include the current law and of course in fairness, in light that they are reopening the case in 2009, have the laws of 2009 apply??What's the secret? Aren't their records public record? Publish those in their entirety instead! Wanna stay off the registry? Don't be a sex offender...plain and simple!
-- Posted by t h on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 3:19 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout