Libertarian Party of Allen County, Indiana: AWB and the "nannies" trying to shut down his blog

Monday, November 13, 2006

AWB and the "nannies" trying to shut down his blog

I am sick and tired of legal groups trying to give convicted CRIMINALS who have served their sentences more rights then parents who want to protect their children...

I still cannot believe that AWB had his blog shut down because some convicted sex offenders took offense to his blog and thought he was threatening them. This is absurd and illustrates some of the things that have gone wrong with this country.

I am glad that Michael Reese had the courage to let us know who was responsible for this outrageous violation of freedom of speech. Michael Reese you should be 100% ashamed of your behavior.

Michael Reese claims that few sex offenders commit sex crimes after they are released from prison.

After I questioned this statistic he did the right thing and posted his source.

Please look for yourself:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm

If this report (From the US Dept of Justice) is accurate then the following was true when this study was conducted on prisoners released in 1994:
1. 43% of these released sex offenders were re-arrested within just three years for various
crimes.
2. 5.3% of the sex offenders that were released were arrested for committing more sex crimes.
3. 68% of non sex offenders released from prison were re-arrested within 3 years for various
crimes.
4. 1.3% of the non sexoffenders released from prison were arrested for committing sex crimes.
MOST DISTURBING TO ME
5. The average sex offender was sentenced to 8 years and served only 3 and 1/2 years.
6. The average CHILD MOLESTER was sentenced to 7 years and served only 3 years.

This helps illustrate some of the things wrong with America:
The recidivism rate is far too high.
Prisoners serve on average less then HALF of their sentence.

WE NEED TO BUILD MORE PRISONS AND WE NEED TO STOP PUTTING PEOPLE IN JAIL FOR NON VIOLENT CRIMES THAT HURT NO ONE OTHER THEN THE PERSON COMMITTING THE CRIME.

Realize that there are numerous studies out about this. Check this one out:
<http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html>

According to this survey only 32% of sexual assaults against persons aged 12 years or odler are reported. This would make you think that a large number of sex offenders released from prison keep committing sex crimes and do not get caught. Do not let that bother you Michael Reese...

According to this survey the rate of arrests for convicted sex offenders is:
Within one year, 6%
Within 5 years, 19%
Within 10 years, 30%
Within 25 years, 52%
Do not let this bother you either Michael Reese.

More statistics from The Department of Justice:
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm>

Look under "Sex Offenders"
The median age of sexual assault victims is less then 13 years old.
19% of those arrested for sexual assault were on probation or parole when they were arrested.
Do not let this bother you Michael Reese...

I could go on and on and on...

Mike Sylvester
Concerned parent of two wonderful children

P.S. Michael Reese please keep in mind that criminals do not have more rights then citizens on my personal property. If I ever see one of the "sex offenders" on AWB's blog in the house I own and in which my children reside and if I feel they are a danger to my children, my wife, or myself; I will use whatever force I think necessary to defend my family up to and including using my 40 caliber hand gun.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...: I have kids of my own and worry about sex offenders. But i believe if you do the time you served your punishment. You cant keep punishing someone after the fact its just wrong. Sentences for sex offenders should be life no exceptions. Sentencing laws should be changed that would eliminate the whole problem. People need to stop trying to fiqure whats wrong with sex offenders and write or call their elected officials and make them do something. they supposedly speak for us. ACT!; 13 November, 2006 13:27
Bob G. said...: Mike:
You're "preachin' to the choir" with me...you know that, right?

The DOJ has a vast repository of info on ALL this...I should know (said too much already)...lol!

Militia23:
Agreed that serving your time= punishment.
BUT....so many of these sex offenders have an ONGOING problem....much akin to a disease. Blame it on "bad wiring" in the brain...
An alcoholic, although he/she might be off the bottle has this problem ALL THEIR LIVES...same is true with SOs.
They live with the possibility of returning to their "old habits" every single day. The "temptation" factor is always with them...and anything might trigger it anew.

Any way you look at it...it becomes a "crap shoot"...do we take yet another chance they WON'T do anything bad to any child today? What about tomorrow? Next week? Next Month?
You see my point.

Maybe most of them will NEVER do anything again....but what of the few (or more) that might slip through society's cracks....? How can we justify one for the other?

Legislation is a good first step...I'm with you on that 100%.

B.G.; 13 November, 2006 14:42
Anonymous said...: It looks like the Fort Wayne area Libertarian party needs to host a seminar on First Amandment rights/freedom of speech. The party members do not seem to know much about it. The First Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) are limitations upon government. They have no application to AWB's dispute with TypePad. If Leo Morris doesn't like a letter to the editor that you submit, the News Sentinel doesn't have to print it- no First Amendment issue. If you do not like this posting, you are free to delete it- no First Amendment issue. If I call your wife a foul name and you shut me up by punching me in the mouth, that's a battery, not a First Amendment violation.

In the case of AWB, TypePad apparently has a contractual agreement that Blog owners will comply with TypePad's rules of conduct, as interpreted by Typepad, and TypePad thinks the rules were violated. Perhaps there is a breach of contract issue, but no First Amendment issue at all. That requires some action by the government, not by a newspaper, blog host, church or advocacy group. When a bunch of people stopped buying Dixie Chick albums, no free speach issue despite their smug protests to the contrary.

What "right" is it that you think convicted sex offenders have, or are claiming to have, that you don't? What is your "more rights" issue about? Whether AWB's comments/posts constitute anything criminal or not, sex offenders are no more or less protectd from harassment, threats and intimidation than anyone else.; 13 November, 2006 15:36
Anonymous said...: B.G. (Semper Paratus) I agree that many sex offenders commit same offense again. Thats why legislation needs to be changed. Im just in disagreement of punishing people after they serve time for their offense. Like I said before sentences should be life. Then we wouldnt have to worry about them ever getting out. Wouldnt that solve the problem and make everone happy. Instead of complaining about system. People should try to get system fixed.; 13 November, 2006 16:40
Robert Enders said...: Anonymous, I agree that Typepad has the right to take down AWB's blog if they believe that he violated their rules. But they were pressured to do so by the government. Therefore, the government violated Typepad's right to allow AWB to post his blog.; 13 November, 2006 17:09
Anonymous said...: Mr. Enders:

If the government did "pressure" TypePad to remove the AWB blog, then the !st Amendment might have some relevance. However, though I have tried to follow this dispute through all of the available channels, you are the first, to my knowledge, to suggest government involvement in the curtailment of the blog. Why do you say this and what is the story?; 13 November, 2006 17:24
Anonymous said...: Mike, I went to the www.sohopeful.org "asshole" link that Dan gave out. I think you should go visit it and check it out, as i found it to be very informative. these people want to reform the megan laws and i after reading through their site, understand now why they feel this way.; 13 November, 2006 20:37
LP Mike Sylvester said...: Interesting point anonymous:

I do not disagree that TypePad as a private business can cut AWB off if they want to...

You are correct on that...

I do not think they shoud; however, they have a right to do what they want...

Mike Sylvester; 13 November, 2006 20:41
Anonymous said...: Sad that we even have to deal with this in todays world. Being a survivor of such abuse and now an advocate I feel inclined to tell you that citizens in Indiana have a long way to fight for justice as do many other states. Just in Sept. 2006 I found a sex offender living directly across the street from my sons public school. I alerted school officials and police right away and was then told that he was within his rights to live where he did. Not being satisfied I then alerted the media who, after investigating, found out from the prosecuting attorneys in Indiana that they didn't even understand their own law. Needless to say the Sex Offender did have to move but in recent developments in Indiana it seems that only one county in Southern Indiana is abidingg by this new law effective July 2006 that says that a registered sex offender cannot live within 1,000 feet of a school or daycare. come to find out many of our elected officials cannot get a clue about whether the law is retroactive or not so until they get an further clarification no other counties in Indiana are enforcing Jessica's law. What is wrong with this picture?; 13 November, 2006 21:37
Robert Enders said...: This is what I got off of Fort Wayne Observed. "An email had been sent to Fort Wayne News earlier that said the weblog was being reported to 'FBI, my lawyer, TypePad and other organizations, and I recommend you shut it down.'" If the FBI recommended that the website be shut down, that could constitute intimidation.; 14 November, 2006 08:45
Anonymous said...: Thanks for your analysis. In fact, your breakdown of the numbers regarding recidivism rates is the most thorough and correct rebuttal I've encountered. Before I break down your analysis, there are some items that I will make “reasonable” assumptions in which we are in agreement about, some basic parental and children’s rights issues, your own DOJ research, and my own explanation on why Turkette is not helping society with his vigilante expose of sex offenders.

First, let me make some points which I’ve not made before which will give you some background. All sentences I recommend should be handed out in court by a judge after a jury conviction.

1. I believe that sex offender laws, in general, are too lax. For instance, I think we are both in agreement that murderers such as John Couey should be put to death. Any adult (and some non-adults) who murders another person, in my opinion, should get the death penalty, victim’s age notwithstanding.
2. Any adult who commits sexual violence against a child under 12 or under deserves the death penalty. In this case, penetration would be considered violence. Note that the victim’s death wouldn’t have to be a factor for the death penalty.
3. Any adult who commits sexual violence, including non-consensual, violent rape against an adolescent 13 to 17 deserves life in prison.
4. Any adult who commits any act of sex with a child, 12 or under, even under consensual conditions, deserves 25-life in prison.

So far, so good. I don’t think either of us have any disagreement so far.

5. Any adult 21 or over who has sexual intercourse or oral copulation with an adolescent 13 to 15, consensual (statutory rape), deserves 10 years, if the adult is more than 21 or more years of age. In addition, he (or she) should be liable for all health conditions that occur in a negative fashion for his/her victim.
6. Any adult between 18 and 21 who has consensual sexual intercourse with an adolescent 13 to 15 should be treated on a case-by-case basis. In most cases, the young adult should be charged with statutory rape, with at least jail time involved.

Now we have probably reached the limits of agreement for sentencing procedures. I haven’t touched on child pornography, Internet solicitation, or other ambiguous sex offenses which can diverge quite a bit on opinion for sentencing. Suffice to say, though, is that we HAVE to have gradation of sentences for a gradation of offenses. Otherwise, if we say that an adult gets the same sentence for patting a child’s butt as he does for having sex with her, then we actually dilute the justice for victims.

Keep in mind, though, that this all involves SENTENCING. If you and I have different views on sentencing, that is irrelevant. The reason is that the adjudication of all criminal offenses, sentencing, and rehabilitation is handled through a court of law, as prescribed by basic Constitutional principal. Without the court system and its inherent punishment scales, justice would be ambiguous at best. In addition, all court records are a matter of public record, and as such are not subject to First Amendment restrictions.

Now this is important. The reason is that Turkette has claimed First Amendment privilege in posting information about the sex offenders (or registrants) on his site that he copied from the Indiana Sex Offender Registry, or any authorized private registry that is contracted through the registry. However, in posting the information on his site, Turkette HIMSELF broke the law by disregarding the website’s OWN warnings in which the information contained in the registry could NOT be used to harass, malign, or otherwise interfere with the registrant’s life. Keep in mind that the law enforcement agency has to have residency and workplace information so they can determine that the registrant is not just stable at home, but has employment that will lead to his ultimate reintegration into society.

OK, I just came out with some liberal gobbledy-gook. But instead of referring to legality, let’s talk common sense for a second. What is Turkette’s purpose in re-posting registrant information from the official website for his purposes? And more importantly, what would the net result be if others did the same thing? There are some chilling answers to consider.

First of all, most of the individuals who are in his blog have done vile, terrible crimes. But in all cases, no murder was committed. Yet Ft. Wayne has 800 paroled or post-correctional murderers living in the community. Do you know where they are? Every one of them has committed a crime far worse than any child molester out on parole or post-correctional status. In effect, you and I probably agree that all murderers should not even be out of prison, and for the most part should have been executed. Fair enough. The point is that they are out and about, but you and I don’t know where they are. Unless you run a check on every neighbor or person you associate with, how do you know they aren’t one from before?

I’m not dodging the subject, but I do want to return to your DOJ assessment. You are right in stating some sex crimes are far more likely to result in recidivism. Most notably, for example, are men who have boys for their sex crimes have a fairly high recidivism rate. But your analysis does not take into effect the gradation of the seriousness of the crimes. Finally, consider the study was done BEFORE registration was in effect. A new rate analysis is being compiled with breakdowns of certain crimes that will refine the 5.3% down in many cases, and up in others, and we will have a more concise measurement to use once it’s finished.

Now, let’s review some of the implications regarding the extracurricular registration activity that Turkette has promoted, without regard to its illegality. If many sites did what Turkette did, there would be more incidents that would occur in which registrants would lose jobs or homes. But the goal here, ostensibly, is to ensure that crimes do NOT occur again! What possible gain could society have in taking away jobs from these ex-criminals? This is not a liberal statement, but one of common sense. Take away the ability for someone to stabilize their lives, they BECOME UNSTABLE. And when they become unstable, wouldn’t it seem likely that they may be more likely to reoffend again? This is not a hypothetical argument…in fact, this is an argument that the Iowa Attorney’s association and the Sheriff’s association have stated has in fact HAPPENED in lieu of the 2000 foot statewide residency laws that have passed in Iowa. Many offenders have simply fallen off the radar screen, or put their residence as gas stations, turnpikes, even bridge underpasses, and law enforcement is having a hell of a time catching up to them.

So if you want to ensure that offenders stay in jail, that’s fine. I have far less disagreement with you and Turkette regarding sentences that are meted out through the court. While I feel that statutory rape should not necessarily result in the same sentence as rape/murder, at least sentences meted out in a court is, in fact, Constitutional.

But when sentences are carried out and offenders are ultimately let out, then we have two jobs, BOTH of which are necessary. The first job is to insure that the offender does NOT offend again, the second is that the offender REINTEGRATE into society. I contend that Turkette’s actions overtly prevent reintegration, and subsequently create a greater likelihood of re-offense, thereby negating any reason for the offender to achieve any sense of normality. Finally, you have been pointing out that the numbers that show that recidivism is LIKELY, then it justifies ensuring that those who DON’T reoffend, in fact, don’t even get the OPPORTUNITY to prove their worth to society. In short, you are providing the perfect Minority Report scenario, creating a slippery slope of law enforcement based more on emotion rather than fact, as well as trashing the ex post facto, fourth, fifth and eight amendments of the US Constitution.

So let’s recap: What the hell good is the registry in the first place? In a way, you and I probably agree that the registry is no good at all! Because if Turkette is allowed to post information in his blog, then so could you, so could I, so could a hundred other blogs. There is no control to the entire manner, and would ultimately lead to the point where offenders lose jobs, homes, and in some cases, become violent… and reoffend again. NOT because they would have done so anyway, but because they snapped. It is just as reasonable for me to make that assumption as for you to say that offenders will reoffend again because they are predisposed to it. And that leads me to a chilling conclusion:

I believe that MOST people, Turkette included, don’t really give a damn about children as MUCH as they give a damn about RE-PUNISHING the offenders. They care more about the sensational ratings they get from kicking out offenders from McDonalds and from steel refineries than they do in preventing child abuse in the first place. Offenders who have been offense free for 20 years, but on the registry, are subject to ridicule and vandalism. Finally, once they successfully get an offender kicked out of a job, or a house, or a community, don’t really give a damn about the offender who may end up in a place where he has JUST as much access to children, but with a less stable mentality. Is THAT what Turkette wants?

This has been a long post. But I believe that what Turkette is doing, and what many people including you concur, is MORE DANGEROUS to the children and the community. This is not an opinion based on love of offenders as it is on love of children.

I have three children myself. I’ll be damned if anyone lays a hand on them and gets away with it, and would probably kill someone if I caught them in the act of doing anything to them. But without laws, proper enforcement, acceptance of verdicts, and ultimate interaction in society with those who’ve harmed but paid their debt, I leave behind a very dangerous world for my children. And I will be very frank: I trust certain ex-criminals more than I trust Turkette. Mainly, because he chooses to keep breaking the law, as well as ignore the consequences of his actions. Ultimately, that is my guide.

Michael Reese
man4theages@hotmail.com; 14 November, 2006 22:51
Tim Zank said...: Mr. Reese, I admire your passion and accept SOME of your conclusions. I have no problem with your sentencing suggestion.
I do take issue with the notion Mr. Turkette is breaking the law.
His re-posting of public records may be problematic for the offender but they are most certainly NOT illegal. There is ambiguity a mile wide with the disclaimers and while a judge with an agenda may see fit to find it illegal in the present tense, it would not stand an appeal and most certainly a jury would NEVER convict. From a civil standpoint it would be awfully tough to prove damages as well due to the old axiom "you made your bed, now you must lay in it".

You correctly point out that offenders may be pushed toward re-offending by the pressures of being "outed" and ostracized, but you are mistaken to think that is an an excuse for re-offending. A simple analogy would be, a convicted child molester lost his job after being exposed. He is now broke and has no prospects and is depressed. So how does molesting another child benefit his situation? You can't argue he did it again because he lost his job...that argument might have a little merit if he robbed a bank to feed his family after losing his job, but committing another sex crime simply illustrates his predisposition.

It may be a shame, but they must accept personal responsibility for heinous acts...be it a lifetime of shame or a lifetime in prison....; 15 November, 2006 08:45
Anonymous said...: Dan's blog was pulled because of his commentary statements he made(like: lets shoot them all) not because he posted info on sex offenders. These type comments do nothing but harass and threaten the lives of the sex offenders he was exploiting on his blog. As a sohopeful member, I do have a problem with Dan posting SO info but i do take offense to his many published threats re SO's. We didnt care about Dan's blog UNTIL he started making the threats and we take such miconduct very seriously. Big John

jhnjoneson@yahoo.com; 15 November, 2006 19:42
Anonymous said...: I have a friend who is a convicted sex offender. He met this young lady in a bar who had a "fake" ID stating she was 18 but in reality, she was really 15 years old. they had sex, he ended up being charged with rape and was convicted and is now marked for life. Down in my neck of the woods in Florida (see www.local6.com), A woman just took a plea bargain of 3 years probation, For putting her baby in a bag and throwing the child into a canal. Where is the real justice at in America? Not much public outcry on the woman above, no registry for her, whereas my friend continues to be punished and just mention that he is a sex offender (without knowing all the facts involved) and he is scorned. Just because we see some sex offender on the web, we are just to assume he is guilty? most are but not all. Some reoffend, Some dont reoffend. My friend hasnt reoffended, so why must he continue to be punished? It is easy to prejudge w/o knowing all the facts. Thanks. big john

jhnjoneson@yahoo.com; 16 November, 2006 19:39
Unknown said...: Do you need an urgent loan of any kind? Loans to liquidate debts or need to loan to improve your business have you been rejected by any other banks and financial institutions? Do you need a loan or a mortgage? This is the place to look, we are here to solve all your financial problems. We borrow money for the public. Need financial help with a bad credit in need of money. To pay for a commercial investment at a reasonable rate of 3%, let me use this method to inform you that we are providing reliable and helpful assistance and we will be ready to lend you. Contact us today by email: daveloganloanfirm@gmail.com Call/Text: +1(501)800-0690 And whatsapp: +1 (315) 640-3560

NEED A LOAN?
Ask Me.; 26 February, 2021 03:55

Libertarian Party of Allen County, Indiana

Monday, November 13, 2006

AWB and the "nannies" trying to shut down his blog

15 comments:

Contributors

Search This Blog

Pages

Offices on the Ballot - Allen County 2024

Blog Archive

Labels

Report Abuse

Sitemeter

Followers

About Commenting

DISCLAIMER

Monday, November 13, 2006

AWB and the "nannies" trying to shut down his blog

15 comments:

Contributors

Search This Blog

Pages

Offices on the Ballot - Allen County 2024

Blog Archive

Labels

Report Abuse

Sitemeter

Followers

Thank you For Subscribing

About Commenting

DISCLAIMER