Results 46 to 60 of 93
03-10-2010, 07:32 PM #46
John and Ken just had a good interview with Mark on www.kfi640.com
I will post the podcast link as soon as it is up later tonight.
Last edited by JBean; 03-11-2010 at 12:00 AM.
03-10-2010, 10:14 PM #47
Being in PA, I have no idea what PA is doing.
I wish I could help CA friends, am I allowed to send letters when I do not live there.
I will if it helps!
I sympathise, it will get worse for all of us!!!
I do have a creep that just moved in near me.
Convicted of porn, child porn and played around (no penetration) with 2 young girls.
He is now living in my neighborhood.
He has all kinds of rights.
We were never notified because he is not violent.
We are not allowed to mention his name etc..........no flyers......nothing.
We can be sued.
I did notify every one that I could though and I dare to be sued by this preditor!
We as a community (mostly retired) must have the safety of everyone on our minds.
You never know when they go from little girls to big girls........
AND he doesn't work, yet lives in an expensive condo unit, new truck and a harley Davidson!!!!
Explain this to me!
He's also a huge guy 6'1" 260 lbs ......looks like a John wayne Gacy.
I CAN NOT FIND WHERE HE EVER WAS IN JAIL..........but convicted and is on the RSO list!
Figure that one out!Kyron, HALEIGH, ADJI & Gabriel NEEDS PRAYERS NOW TO FIND THEM!. Zahra & Jonathan in heaven
Justice for Hailey!!!!
No Justice for Caylee Marie..........
03-11-2010, 07:25 PM #48Registered User
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
Sexually Violent Preditor arrested on High School Campus
This happened in Fair Oaks, CA (near Sacramento)
First post, so please forgive me if I did something wrong. Thanks
03-12-2010, 12:40 PM #49
OK - I'm confused by this story posted on FoxNews..
In the sixth to the last paragraph it states:
Gardner couldn't be committed to a state mental hospital after the 2000 case because the law then required at least two victims. Jessica's Law now allows evaluations after just one.
I think the word "victim" should have been "evaluation" in the first sentence, and the second sentence is referring to the number of evaluations...or am I reading it wrong?
If this was the meaning, then when did this change? Who changed it? Who had the authority to change the law in California? Did the voters go to the polls and say, "We were wrong - only one evaluation needs to be done."
I think a lot of liberal psychiatrists sympathize with these sick people and say, "Well, they are a victim themselves of a bad childhood" which is a big crock of BS...who here had a "bad" childhood?? I know I did and I'm not a monster!! I say lock them up & throw away the key...and if they kill a child, one bullet to the head. We shouldn't waste time & money defending them. Get rid of them. Society would be so much better without them & their "rights."
03-12-2010, 12:48 PM #50
On thing to add to the list of what to do (or not to do) with SO's:
NO PLEA BARGAINS!!
The Following User Says Thank You to marlalouise For This Useful Post:
03-14-2010, 01:57 AM #51Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
There is a data network company who simply gather certain specific data from volunteers who log the useful information into the company data base. Im sorry if im not making my self clear. I can show you better.
The Following User Says Thank You to mrstephens For This Useful Post:
03-14-2010, 03:01 AM #52
Certainly the DMH employee who broke the law in the first place, if not DMH as a whole? On behalf of the 14 year old who was raped and murdered 4 days after a violent offender was released?
A class action lawsuit from the citizens of California to DMH, and/or it's employees involved?
Idk.My Opinion Only..MOO
03-16-2010, 02:11 AM #53
Having worked in the system for many years, I am well aware of how it operates. I can tell you first hand that the mental health system trumps custody regarding the release of prisoners. I worked in a prison that had a mental health center incorportated within the walls of the prison. It is a very hard concept to understand. The prison itself had mental health help available but sometimes they would be sent to the "county mental health" down the hall....very complex indeed.
I know first hand exactly what Marc is saying. I can tell you that the problem lies in the hands of the professionals in mental health who refuse to take responsibility for incarcerating an inmate longer than he has to be. They used to rely on the system and "felt" they deserved to parole. I recall the day when the mental health team was asked if they would assess the inmate and tell them if they thought he would repeat. They refused to do it and said it was not their responsibility and will not comply.
I have stories and have paid a heavy price for them.
Last edited by Whisperer; 03-16-2010 at 02:16 AM.
03-16-2010, 12:16 PM #54
What it basically comes down to is the almighty dollar. I worked for the Office of Mental Health for many years and have seen many instances where the patient was released for the wrong reasons only to result in a tragedy of some sort. Those with criminal activity were detained and had to finish out their sentences no matter what the mental status was so I'm not getting California's logic in all this.My posts are my opinion only.....
03-21-2010, 07:55 AM #55Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Norfolk, Virginia
I'd say they should be thrown onto some island somewhere, along with all the murderers, rapists, etc., so that this country can finally be safe! Or just execute them altogether.
Last edited by Garland; 03-21-2010 at 07:57 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Garland For This Useful Post:
03-22-2010, 08:56 AM #56
Sex offenders were more likely to re-offend if they had prior sex offenses or male victims, if they victimized strangers or extra-familial victims, if they began sexually offending at an early age, or if they engaged in diverse sex crimes.69 The study found that sexual offense recidivism was most likely for offenders who had sexual interest in children, deviant sexual preferences, and sexual interest in boys. Failure to complete treatment was also found to be a moderate predictor of sexual recidivism. Being sexually abused as a child was not related to repeat sexual offending.
Read the entire (61-page) report at the following link: http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/04/12/04-012.pdf
03-22-2010, 09:40 AM #57
The California definition of a SVP is “a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against two or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.” The law defines substantial sexual conduct with a child younger than 14 years old as violent crime.
To initiate the civil commitment procedure, the California Department of Corrections (CDC) and the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) conducts a review of each inmate’s record during the six months before their parole release date to determine if the sexual offenses meet the legal definition. If the offender meets the definition he is referred to the DMH upon completion of his prison term to determine if he meets the SVP criteria. As of September of 2004, the CDC has referred 5,577 offenders to DMH for a civil commitment review. Over 2,450 of these referrals did not meet the SVP criteria. These offenders were subsequently released back to CDC for parole.
If the DMH determines that the offender meets the criteria, he is required to undergo a clinical evaluation to determine if there is a diagnosed mental disorder. This determination is made by two DMH clinicians (psychiatrists or psychologists). If both concur that the person has a diagnosed mental disorder, the DMH will refer the case to the county district attorney of record who can file a petition for a civil commitment hearing before a judge. To date, county district attorneys have filed 1,018 of these petitions.
If the clinicians do not agree, two independent clinical evaluators under contract with the DMH will examine the offender. If the second set of evaluators do not concur, the offender will be released to CDC parole. If the second set of evaluators find the inmate meets SVP criteria, the DMH will refer the case to the district attorney of record. To date, 1,806 sex offenders did not meet the clinical evaluation criteria for civil commitment and were released back to CDC for parole and community supervision.
According to DMH officials, it costs the department approximately $41.6 million to operate and maintain the Sex Offender Commitment Program for 483 committed offenders as well as those awaiting civil commitment decisions. This includes costs related to program implementation and evaluations and court costs for persons referred from the Department of Corrections as potentially meeting the SVP criteria. This averages out to about $59,500 per offender (Based on the number of years (8) the program has operated, divided by the accumulative number of offenders (5,577) and the average number of offenders by the annual cost) ($41,583,000/697).
Which SO's are more likely to be civilly committed;
...Many are considered mentally retarded which is characterized by significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning (i.e., an IQ of approximately 70 or below).[/B]
So the question I'll leave you all with this morning, before I begin my busy day (sorry-I hate to post & run), is this;
If we know that not only is the cost of the civil committment process itself expensive, once committed, the cost for committment annually per/offender is at least 3x's the cost of incarceration; combined with the fact that the most cunning and manipulative (and the most dangerous, IMO) offenders will/can (easily) slip through the psychiatric evaluation process, being found without a mental illness diagnosis that rises to a level meeting the civil committment standard, WHY-WHY-WHY than do we not work to change the sentencing laws/requirements and keep these slimeballs in prison (NOT IN A HOSPITAL) where they belong??
Link to the above: http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/04/12/04-012.pdf
03-23-2010, 06:23 AM #58
I have seen this passing-the-buck time and time again within our Governmental agencies. I have yet to find anyone that truly takes their job seriously (ie: working FOR the public that pays their salaries!) I have been in a battle with the medical, dental and Governmental entities after the horrendous treatment of my sister actually by all three. None of them will take responsibility for anything.
It saddens me that the protection of the innocent public lies far down on the list of priorities. The people that abide by the law are stomped on repeatedly. Although I dont condone it, I can understand the frustration that drives someone to take matters into their own hands!
To contact these people, emails are useless. The "contact us" button on Government websites are a farce. Snail mail is the way to go, and they hope most people are too lazy to go that route.Robert Harrod will be found.
All my posts are MOO and nothing but MOO!!!!
The Following User Says Thank You to suzyq211 For This Useful Post:
04-03-2010, 10:29 AM #59
East Bay braces for influx of released prisoners
snipped> Although the legislators promised to keep dangerous felons behind bars, The Associated Press reported this week that some violent offenders have been among those released.
04-04-2010, 10:58 PM #60
By Patience in forum FloridaReplies: 1Last Post: 11-21-2009, 10:57 PM
By believe09 in forum Up to the MinuteReplies: 0Last Post: 09-10-2009, 09:09 AM