A City of Milwaukee ordinance passed by the Common Council in July 2014 is making it nearly impossible for former sex offenders to find housing. The ordinance restricts these ex-offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school, licensed day care center, park, recreation trail or playground.
As of Jan. 16, 2015, the city released a public notice listing 55 addresses — 117 units, according to a Department of Corrections (DOC) field supervisor — where released sex offenders can legally reside under the new law. The list includes private residences that are currently occupied and multiple-unit buildings that have refused to rent to sex offenders.
“We do not in any way represent that these properties are available to rent or live in,” said Milwaukee City Clerk Jim Owczarski, who noted ironically that the list is “the best reference document” for sex offenders trying to find housing.
He added, “It’s frankly not the city’s role … to find housing for sexual offenders.”
Thomas Salter, a DOC field supervisor for sex offenders at Unit 330, said the city ordinance is “the most difficult thing that my agents have to deal with.” Salter said 40 individuals currently under his supervision are homeless.
“It’s not something that’s helpful, it’s not something that makes our community safe, it’s not something that’s even just decent,” he said. “But, it’s something that we have to deal with because of our city council’s decisions.”
One of the people affected by the ordinance is Raymond Rosa, 49, who was released on parole in June and is homeless. Rosa and his girlfriend Malina Oglesby, 52, who had a home together before Oglesby filed for bankruptcy, had been staying with her mother with the permission of Rosa’s parole officer.
At the end of June, the couple was kicked out because there were “too many people in one house,” according to Rosa. Since then, they’ve moved from place to place in a van Rosa jerry-rigged with batteries, which provide a small amount of electricity to power the couple’s breathing machines — both Rosa and Oglesby have sleep apnea — and the GPS bracelet he wears on his ankle. Rosa even installed an air conditioner during the hot summer months.
Oglesby said she has seen other homeless people with nothing more than a bag and a pillow. Rosa, who referred to himself as “a survivalist,” acknowledged they’re better off than some but he’s still unsure about what the Wisconsin winter will bring.
Rosa said he petitioned DOC to let him serve out his time on supervision, which goes through September 2016, in prison. Rosa received a letter in response stating a request for voluntary incarceration will not be approved if the offender “seeks to avoid supervision.”
“I don’t know if I’m gonna make it through this winter,” he said. “I don’t know if she’s gonna make it through the winter. Anybody that doesn’t take an insurance [policy] out on me is an idiot.”
Misconceptions
The preamble to the city ordinance that restricts where sex offenders can live calls them “an extreme threat to the public safety” who are “extremely likely to use physical violence and to repeat their offenses.” It says the cost to society is, “while incalculable, clearly exorbitant” and claims the intent of the ordinance is “not to impose a criminal penalty” but to improve the health, safety and welfare of citizens.
“That’s an awfully broad brush to be painting all sex offenders [with],” said Larry Dupuis, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin. “People who have been convicted of sex offenses are quite variable. Unfortunately, most of these laws treat them all as identical.”
In fact, nationwide, only 5.3 percent of sex offenders re-offend within three years of their release. More than nine out of 10 had not previously been convicted of a sex crime; most victims are known to the perpetrator; and treatment can have a significant effect on whether or not a sex offender will re-offend. In Wisconsin, sex offenders deemed to be at high risk of reoffending are confined to sex offender treatment facilities under a 1994 law.
Dupuis, who was involved in an unsuccessful challenge to a similar South Milwaukee ordinance, said residency restrictions on sex offenders “are largely driven by misconceptions.” Among them is the idea of the “lurking sex offender,” which Dupuis called “fiction,” and the assumption that sex offenders are more likely to commit an offense closer to their homes.
All 19 municipalities in Milwaukee County have some type of residency ordinance that restricts where sex offenders can live. “The biggest problem with many of them is that they’re actually counterproductive. They make people’s lives less stable,” said Dupuis.
Dupuis added, “They have to live somewhere.”
He noted that an unstable environment can make it harder to access treatment or keep a job; that instability can also estrange a person from family or social support systems.
“We have family,” said Rosa. “I’ve got a brother, I’ve got a mother … she’s got brothers, she’s got sons. I can’t [live] there (because of the ordinance).”
Dupuis said, “There’s no doubt that these ordinances have created a homeless population,” adding, “if people really want to be safe, the last thing you want is for [sex offenders] to be homeless.”
In limbo
On Monday, Sept. 28, Milwaukee police arrested Rosa on South Hawley Court, a dead- end street where he and Oglesby had been periodically parking to sleep. According to a complaint Rosa filed with the City of Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission, he was taken into custody after a Hunger Task Force employee notified police of a suspicious vehicle. Rosa had an outstanding parole violation, stemming from a problem with the GPS tracking band he wears on his ankle; he said his parole officer had forgotten to remove the bogus violation from the computer system.
Rosa was released less than 24 hours later, and he returned to Hawley Court. According to the complaint, the arresting officer came back to check on the couple the next morning. Then, in the early morning hours of Oct. 1, a member of the police Homeless Outreach Team (HOT) drove Rosa to his brother’s house for water. By later that morning, however, another District 3 officer came to tell the couple they had to leave.
“We decided that we didn’t want him to be there any longer,” said Salter, adding, “we didn’t say anything to him about being in violation of the ordinance.”
Salter said Hunger Task Force Executive Director Sherrie Tussler told him that Rosa had been using a water supply without permission, was bathing in public and had “some rude, inappropriate interactions with staff.” The fact that the couple was staying in the van together also factored into the decision, according to Salter.
Rosa disputes that account. “I showered every day at my mom’s or my brother Joe’s — every day,” he said. “That’s why I stayed there, because it was four blocks from my brother’s house and I could just go there and take a shower every day, and charge up.”
When contacted about the incident, Tussler was not available and Hunger Task Force Communications Manager Julie Frinzi declined to comment.
Rosa said that, after being arrested, he was given permission to return to Hawley Court by his parole officer. HOT coordinator Lt. Liam Looney and Rosa spoke over the phone, as well. “He asked me a specific question about [whether he could] park on the city street by the Hunger Task Force,” said Looney. “And, what I told him was that he can park on a city street just like anybody could.”
But he was picked up again on Friday, Nov. 20. This time, Rosa was held for a week. He said he had stopped on the block to eat. “I can’t even park on that street; my dad’s buried right there,” he said. “I can’t even go visit my dad.”
In general, Salter said Rosa has been “up and down” about following his rules of supervision, which include weekly check-ins with his parole officer and weekly treatment sessions. He said there have been some small missteps but that “they haven’t been really significant violations that required … long-term incarceration or anything like that.”
Salter added, “For the most part, he’s been pretty good about it. He’s been a little bit frustrated with things, which is totally understandable.”
Rosa is afraid DOC is building a case to revoke his parole and send him back to prison. Were that to happen, Rosa would most likely be required to serve the remaining 15 months and 22 days of his sentence.
Joy Staab, director of public affairs for DOC, said, “If an offender who’s on supervision breaks rules, then the Department of Corrections has the authority to proceed with revocation.”
Wisconsin law says sex offenders on parole are to be released to the county in which the person resided on the date of the sex offense, the county in which the person was convicted of the sex offense or a sex offender treatment facility. Salter and Detective Ann Golombowski, who oversees sex offenders in Oak Creek, where Rosa was convicted, said he should be able to go there. Golombowski said a number of sex offenders live in a trailer park near S. 27th Street and W. College Avenue.
However, Rosa said, “They won’t let me go.”
For now, all he can do is wait. “I’m paying my debt to society and I will continue to pay it … then I’ll be gone, then I’ll leave this place … try to start my life over,” Rosa said.
He added, “I’ll find somewhere where they’ll accept me [as] a human being.”
Banishment
Numbers provided by Milwaukee Police Department Sgt. Timothy Gauerke show that 713 sex offenders are on active supervision in the city. So far this year, 121 citations have been issued in violation of the residency ordinance. “When an individual is cited, offenders can pay the citation or dispute it in court,” he said.
But Gauerke added, “Since someone that is homeless technically does not have a permanent or temporary address, they cannot be in violation.”
Gauerke said MPD has been requesting the GPS coordinates from DOC so the department knows where homeless sex offenders are actually staying. All homeless sex offenders on supervision are GPS-tracked.
According to Dupuis, “The crimes that people have committed, nobody is excusing them. But there are other awful crimes where people get a second chance.” He called the residency law a form of banishment. “For some reason … people have decided that sex offenders can be treated as lifetime pariahs, even if they don’t offend ever again.”
He added, “That’s incredibly harsh. Unfortunately, it’s still, at least in Wisconsin, politically popular.”
Owczarski noted, “From a policy perspective … the interest was not to find housing for sexual offenders. It was to state those areas in which they could not live.” He added that he doesn’t think the Common Council would remove its restrictions except as part of a comprehensive, statewide solution.
Dupuis noted that in some states, courts are starting to recognize that sex offender laws and, in particular, residency restrictions are bad policy. “They just, essentially, continue the punishment beyond a person’s criminal sentence,” he said.
Wisconsin State Senator Lena Taylor’s office is in the very early stages of researching a possible legislative solution. “I think the state does have a responsibility and I know … my desire is to see legislation done,” she said.
Craig Trost, Taylor’s communications director, said the goal is to create a statewide, uniform policy to give sex offenders a place to live while keeping the community safe. He said the senator intends to introduce legislation some time in 2016.
Until then, Taylor said local governments have “a responsibility to figure out how to help to place those individuals.” She also said there needs to be more cooperation among departments and agencies so that communities know when and where offenders are being released and are prepared to accommodate them.
Taylor added, “I think that we could be more proactive.”
W.C. says
This is just wrong any way you slice it. There should be no law allowed to stand that literally legislates these offenders into homelessness. The human condition in this nation is pathetic. Most people probably get a sadistic reward knowing that people have been legislated into homelessness and starvation. I hope someone sues and gets this sub-human law overturned post-haste. It’s unconscionable to pass these sorts of laws. By the same token, it’s unconscionable for anyone to sexually violate another human being. However, 2 wrongs do not make a right. This state needs a chapter of R.S.O.L. (Reform Sex Offender Laws) and a lawyer like Janice Bellucci. Shame on the city of Milwaukee.
The fact that the one place offenders can live legally refuses to rent to them proves that the state should have the burden of providing housing for men and women who find themselves in this untenable condition. Shame on Milwaukee!!!
These men and women have done terrible things, but that should never be a license to strip them of their basic human rights.
Robert says
First, not all these men and women “have done terrible things”. There are over 40 felonies and misdemeanors that are classified as sexual offenses, including public urination, in some states. One cannot be guided by the title of the offense, for instance, in Arizona, “sexual abuse” means touching someone over their clothes with any part of your body. That’s not exactly what the average person would think it means when they hear the term “sexual abuse””. So one must be informed of the details before assuming that they have done a “terrible thing”
Secondly, and the main point I’m trying to make. The reason for all this madness is very clear and simple, but very difficult to admit. The United States is a religious country. It’s beliefs, history and laws are based on religious views. The virgin Mary got impregnated without having sex. Adam and Eve bit the evil apple (sex). Parents teach their children abstinence instead of reality. All because religion says that sex is a very, very bad thing. No-one wants to engage in a real, pragmatic, and scientific discussion about sex, instead they want to continue to guide their lives based on superstition and tradition, in other words, the Christian religion.
Thus we are all being imposed religious views about sex. The constitution protects us from being imposed other people’s religious views. But you can take that argument to the supreme court and they will deny it. Because the judges sitting there are themselves religious, and they were put on that bench to keep America religious.
In conclusion, the United States is no different than Iran, where they stone women to death because they looked at another man. In the United States they punish and emotionally abuse people for life. All because their bible says so.
W.C. says
First, I had the rapists and child molesters in mind when I wrote about “terrible things” because those things are indeed undeniably terrible. I agree that there should be “Romeo & Juliet” clauses in the sex offender registry laws. I also don’t think the one who went “streaking” at a ball game as a prank should be listed as a sex offender. (Remember Ray Stevens’ “The Streak”?) I don’t think adults who seek out and patronize prostitutes should be labeled as sex offenders; only their pimps should be registered because they often force young, under-age girls into prostitution and get them hooked on drugs so as to have a hold on them.
Second, Christianity is definitely NOT a myth. It is real and I have surveyed the evidence. It’s there if you want to see it.
True Christianity does not favor how sex offenders are treated. Forgiveness is the rule of thumb in the Bible.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
W.C. says
I meant to say in a previous post that men who seek out ADULT female prostitutes should not be listed as sex offenders.
W.C. says
Verses 43-48 are from Matthew 5. Verses 12-15 are from Matthew 6. Both quotes are from the King James Bible
Sandy Rozek says
Yes, this state needs an RSOL contact or advocate. Yes, the situation created here is beyond unconscionable and inexcusable. I thank Mr. Faraj for writing this and implore him to continue with follow-up. I implore Senator Taylor to gather all the information possible from research and experts in the field on this subject and to act accordingly. In this day and age, with the plethora of information available, there is no reason at all for legislation and ordinances practices not to be supported by empirical evidence, and there is not a shred of evidence that supports residency restrictions.
W.C. says
You are spot-on Sandy Rozek. This exposes the true intent of the plethora of sex offender laws on the books; punish them into perpetuity. Run them to another jurisdiction so that they’ll be someone else’s problem. It’s the NIMBY philosophy. (Not In My Back Yard!!!)
W.C. says
Sandy, both the public and the politicians refuse to let empirical evidence guide the course of sex offender legislation because they know the minute they start to base laws on scientific research all their feel-good laws will go right down the tubes. No politician has the guts to stand up to the public and say “We need to back off of sex offenders and give them options.” To do so would undeniably be political suicide.
Hopefully the politician being quoted here will make good on her word and get some real housing and job options for these individuals.
Also, anyone convicted of a violent sexual offense or an offense involving a child after the passage of the 2014 Farm Bill will be ineligible for S.N.A.P. benefits (food stamps). This federal mandate is written in a way that prevents states from opting out of this exclusion like they can the disqualification of drug offenders for S.N.A.P. benefits. So in reality, they’re legislated into homelessness and starvation.
Barbara Gale says
I cannot believe such legislation gets passed. The sad thing is that when a legislator tries to make things more reasonable, there is such public outcry that they are soon replaced. What is the answer? How do we educate the public to the ghastly nature of the sex offender laws – how they are painted with such a broad brush?
cdbitts says
This is why we must change the narrative by exposing the lies being told that actually increase the risk to the community and waste resources all in the name of getting elected.
W.C. says
As to the 2014 Farm Bill, I knew that it wasn’t retroactive, but I’m also glad to know that it didn’t completely shut compliant offenders out. Yeah, OnceFallen.com is a great site as is the National R.S.O.L. page.
As to changing public perception, I don’t hold out much hope for that due to the fact that there is so much animosity toward sexual offenders; particularly those who committed their offenses against the 12 and under age group. When people WANT to believe something, even a known lie, they won’t relinquish that belief no matter how much legitimate evidence is put forth to refute said lie.
Anywhere these articles are posted, I meet with hatred and bitterness even when I mention the low recidivism rate and the increase in public safety by giving sex offenders-EVEN CHILD MOLESTERS-real, viable options upon release from prison. The attitude I encounter only proves the intent of the law. It’s a political football for officials, but it’s also a clear message that says, “We don’t think sex offenders, ESPECIALLY CHILD MOLESTERS, can ever pay a dear enough price for the crime they committed. They need to be made to suffer endlessly for the rest of their lives is the prevailing mentality. So the aim is NOT safety, but unending punishment that in some unfortunate instances gives law enforcement the right to jail offenders on the flimsiest of circumstances; e.g. getting 8-10 years in prison for not registering. That’s not a violent felony and should not draw a felony conviction period. The punishment far outweighs the crime. However, that can go in an offender’s favor because the true punitive nature of these laws is becoming more and more apparent to judges as the penalties for violating these public safety laws gets harsher and harsher along with the restrictions that get tacked to these public notification laws.
Sandy Rozek says
This was very high on our radar at the time, and the bill passed with some very significant exclusions. The actual meaning of the bill is this:
“If you were not convicted for a crime that took place on or before February 7, 2014, you are still eligible for food stamps. If you were convicted for a crime that took place after February 7, 2014, you are STILL eligible for food stamps so long as you abide by registration laws and don’t have any active warrants out for your arrest.” This comes from The Once Fallen Sex Offender Advocacy Blog, a well-researched source. A full analysis of the bill is available there.
DL says
I have noticed that any time an article or newscast on this subject comes out, the registrant is always referred to as “convicted”. This is not true. My husband was never convicted or adjudicated, yet has to register for the rest of his life. I wish just once a reporter would mention all of the registrants who were not guilty, but still required to register.
Sandy Rozek says
DL, without going into details, what were the circumstances? Did he take a plea? A plea is considered a conviction. Registration is triggered, normally, by a plea or a conviction for an offense. Yes, there are some exceptions. What can you share about this?
DL says
Sandy,
Wow, I guess my husband took a plea but we were never told what you said. The paperwork he got at the end of his probation states non convicted non adjudicated. To us that means just what it says, are we wrong?
Sandy Rozek says
DL, I am not a lawyer. To me non-convicted should mean just that. An adjudication is a formal announcement of a decision or agreement, so non-adjudicated should mean that didn’t happen, but I don’t know if the meaning differs in a legal sense. I do know that more people in prison or on probation or on the registry are there due to a plea agreement than because of a guilty finding at a trial. When you take a plea, you are pleading guilty to whatever charges you–or your attorney–and the DA agree upon. You might want to consult an attorney about what the papers say and exactly what it means.
Joe U. says
To refer to Raymond as a former sex offender makes it seen as all is forgiven and that he is a full member of society. That is so from the truth it’s ludicrous. Both Raymond and I are RSO’s (registered sex offenders) and altho it’s not stated here, I’ll bet he needs to register for life, as I do. My heart goes out to him and all RSO’s that have their constitutional trampled on so the rest of the world can feel “SAFE”. Yet, many studies now show that RSO’s don’t commit sex crimes again. Ever! One day I hope that this form of Mc Carthyism will be neutralized and common sense will prevail. I’m 71 and sad to say don’t think it will happen in my lifetime. Raymond, when you’re off parole, move to Texas. We seem to have a little more common sense than Milwaukee politicians. But then that’s not saying much.
W.C. says
I recently read that one Texas town recently passed an ordinance that requires sex offenders to put a sign in their front yard that identifies them as such.
Sandy Rozek says
Yes, that is in Gonzales, Texas, a very small town not too far from Houston. Texas has some good things going for it, but much needs to be done everywhere. I keep going back to insisting on fact-based laws and ordinances. If we could accomplish that, many of these issues would be resolved.
Sandy Rozek says
Joe, I use former sex offender to indicate that he is no longer sexually offending. Yes, his registered status may well be for life. I would not call someone a thief if he was at one time a thief but has been rehabilitated and not stolen anything in years. A sex offender, to me, is someone who is actively engaged in that activity. Once someone has made the choice to live a law-abiding life and is trying to be re-assimilated into the community, he is a former offender or a registrant or a registered citizen. Words have a great deal of power; words are my tools and weapons. To continue calling someone a sex offender when he has not committed a crime in years perpetuates the beliefs that many have that “sex offenders never change.”
Old Hand says
Being part of Marquette’s Journalism program you are taking wild license with your craft. A convicted speeder is a convicted speeder. A convicted murderer is a murderer. A convicted sex offender is a sex offender. It’s binary and not situational as you’d prefer. You are imposing your bias and frankly polyanna attitudes into this story. How are you so certain that any sex offender (in your definition, former) isn’t also a current sex offender. Studies show that they have offended many more times than the event they were convicted for.
You need to go back to class or label your story as an editorial.
Leah says
Mr Rosa raped a 15 year old girl who was a friend of his daughters. I hope his sleep apnea machine fails & never wakes up. He’s playing victim, he victimized a young girl who probably still is haunted by him. Sicko!
Sandy Rozek says
Leah, to wish for the death of another person–I assume, in spite of what you wrote, that you were wishing for Mr. Rosa’s death and not that of his machine–is a terrible thing. I know none of the details of the crime of which he was convicted, as you seem to do, but, again assuming that you are correct, I have nothing but sympathy for his victim and pray she has healed and recovered. You will notice that nothing I have said is in defense of the crime committed. It is for the application of facts and evidence and human decency to the situation, and that is spoken to most eloquently in the article by Thomas Salter, the DOC officer who works with the population of homeless registrants, when he said, “It’s [residency restrictions] not something that’s helpful, it’s not something that makes our community safe, it’s not something that’s even just decent,” he said. “But, it’s something that we have to deal with because of our city council’s decisions.”
W.C. says
Well said Sandy. None of us even almost condone the crimes committed by sex offenders be it rape, incest, child molestation, etc. Those crimes are deserving of serious punishment. What I am against is poor legislation that actually destabilizes these offenders by cutting them off from the basic human needs we all have, criminal or not. There is nothing more repugnant to common decency than forcing someone to be homeless even in the harshest of cold, wet, storms, etc. and to word the laws to where they can’t even go to an emergency shelter.
If officials are so worried about his problem as they say they are, why don’t they BUILD shelters for homeless sex offenders in areas that aren’t off-limits??? Those who can do something to mitigate this problem need to quit talking and start DOING.
Leah says
Build shelters? With who’s money, the tax payers??? Let rapists rape & then provide homes for them.. Good idea but a better idea should be for you to let Rosa live with you. You pay WE Energies for them to use their sleep apnea machines & feed them with YOUR money. That’s a good idea, glad you thought of it.
W.C. says
Sandy, the woman you are replying to is a cold-hearted excuse for an individual who has a “Piss on ’em!!!” attitude toward sex offenders. You’re wasting your breath even trying to reason with the likes of her. People and politicians of her mindset are the true reason the laws are the way they are. The only way people like her change their tune is when someone they really, really love gets labeled a sex offender. Then it’s a horse of a whole nother color.
Manfred says
Elected officials have the right to a fair trial before they are shot for their treason. This is more than they offer anyone else.
Leah says
Poor rapist who fed vodka to his daughters friend at the Redroof hotel in Oak Creek then sexually assaulted the 15 year old. Although I agree that people convicted of a crime deserve to do their time & make a life for themselves, this guy should be in prison. Google him & look into the details before you defend this criminal. If after you do your research still feel he’s not a threat, invite him & his girlfriend over for Christmas. Maybe they can recharge their batteries for their sleep apnea machines. Just a thought, how can he be so over weight being homeless? Who’s feeding this guy? The tax payers or Milwaukee County Zoo?
TinaMarie says
I think this ordinance is unconstitutional. My boyfriend was 17 and his kids mother was 14.He was waived as an adult and has to be labeled as a sex offender. He has had to move twice since this ordinance has came into effect. He’s a great father to his kids and a great man to me this new ordinance is making it hard for him and I to live a normal life. I Just wish it was some kind of way for him to get this off his name since he was so young when it happened. I am not excusing what happened however how many of us have made poor decisions in our past? Do we have to pay for it for the rest of our lives. What about murderers, arsonist and every other horrible crime that was committed. Are these people being singled out? I want and pray some thing changes soon. He told me today he wants to give up!!
Reply
Terisa says
We’ll my son took the blame for his dad . His dad molested his step daughter and threatened all of the children involved even made the little girl lie and say that her step brother did it when the mother of the children knew that her husband had done this but she did not want him to go to jail because he was the main provider for them. My son was 14 when this happened my son was sent to prison for something he did not do and in prison they make you confess to it and if you don’t you will have no privileges meaning no mail no outside no food confined to your jail cell no clothing no toilet paper no hygiene nothing my son was given a 10 year sentence he spent all of his childhood in prison because his father threatened to kill me and my other children if he told the truth and his father told him he could fix it to where the police will not believe a word he says. Then just about a year ago my ex husband was convicted of child molestation with his step daughters , his biological daughter caught him in the act he was put in jail and went to prison. But he had been doing this to these little girls since the age of 3 and he got a lesser sentence then my son did so I don’t know how anyone could say that our justice system is right when it is wrong. And all of this is happening in the state of Texas now my son is due to be released but in the state of Texas there is a sex offender law that says you cannot be more than 2500 feet basically the distance of 3 football fields is what they told me you’re a school a church a park a swimming pool a restaurant that has a playground area sidewalks where children congregate and in the town I live in Sherman Texas it is nothing but churches schools swimming pools restaurants with playgrounds where children Kongregate and I don’t have the money to go outside of town in the country to buy a home for him WHAT DO I DO NOW. I NEED HELP TO FIND A PLACE FOR MY SON AND THERE IS NOTHING NO PLACE FO US TO GO WHO IS GOING TO HELP ALL OF US IN THIS Situation.
W.C. says
Sadly all I can say is, “Welcome to the cruel, draconian, completely unjust & unconstitutional booby trap that is sex offender legislation. The situation you find yourself in is the very impetus behind sex offender legislation.
I think there’s a group called “Texas Voices Of Reason”, which advocates for more humane, common sense sex offender legislation based on facts and not personal passions, fear, and hatred.
DT says
I’m an offender. I intentionally looked at child porn and am ashamed of my behavior but I’d never hurt a child (not that I’m saying my actions didn’t but it is different). I’m off supervision but still a registrant. I’m trying to put ther pieces of a broken life together. I have acquired a degree, a good job, a girl friend of several years and want to buy a home for us since I can finally afford it. But I can’t. I can’t live in the surrounding communities as I didn’t commit my crime there. I can’t live in Milwaukee because there’s nothing 2000 feet from child zones except for the unavailable 55 residences on that b.s. list. It’s literally illegal for me to exist. What should I do? Kill myself like another offender I know did because he couldn’t handle it all? I have no options. No help. No support. I’m a good person and a constructive part of society. I’d be a great neighbor. Those who fear me are ignorant. Those who hate me are more dangerous with that hate than I am with the foolishness of my past.
Leah says
There’s more to your story than “looking at child porn”. How did the police find out? You must’ve been online looking at kids, BABIES under the ads of 13, to the point where you we doing it over long periods of time, long enough to be investigated and charged. It would only of been a matter of time as to when you’d act on your fantasy. You being charged and forced to register might have saved a child from your sick fantasies. I’m glad you were caught. You’re another sicko. I wouldn’t want you as my neighbor! I’m a wife, parent & live a in subdivision outside of the city of Milwaukee-trust me when I tell you none of my neighbors would want you as a neighbor. Our kids are out playing all summer long, NO WAY YOUD BE WELCOME!
W.C. says
These people are going to have to live somewhere. If we simply go by where they’d be welcomed, they wouldn’t have an option in the world. The “Not In My Back Yard” mentality just isn’t right. It’s selfish and forces the problem of housing offenders on someone else. When you push them all out of one community they have to go somewhere. That overtaxes already stretched resources in other jurisdictions.
Here’s a novel idea: Show your kids pictures of offenders that live nearby regularly so that they know their faces. Have them tell you the second one tries to approach them in any way.
The news reports the most shocking cases because that generates ratings and boosts viewing. The reality of child sexual abuse is that in 96-97% of cases the child is abused by someone already in your inner circle of trust. It could be a youth minister at church, the minister, a coach, a family member, a trusted family friend…The stranger danger everyone is so hysterical about rarely happens. Stranger sexual abuse is the rarest form.
Other effective ways to safeguard your children:
(1) Do not give them a smart phone or Android Tablet. There are apps out there now that are designed from the ground up to evade any and all parental monitoring measures. They are designed to be hidden from parents. I recently read this, but cannot remember where I saw it. There are apps out there now aimed at kids who want to circumvent parental monitoring of their phone or tablet activities, so beware.
(2) Only allow your children to use the Internet on a computer that is in a public area where you can walk by and look over their shoulder at any given moment.
Kids are much more likely to be stalked by strangers online than in person like what you’re scared of with this man. At least he was honest enough to tell what he did.
I know lots of people discount Wikipedia, but they require legitimate documentation for articles to be posted . They require legitimate source materials. Here is an article that details the research into the correlation between a person viewing child pornography and actually sexually abusing a child.
Relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A range of research has been conducted examining the link between viewing child pornography and perpetration of child sexual abuse, and much disagreement persists regarding whether a causal connection has been established.[1][2][3][4] Perspectives fall into one of three positions:
Viewing child pornography increases the likelihood of a individual committing child sexual abuse. Reasons include that the pornography normalizes and/or legitimizes the sexual interest in children, as well as that pornography might eventually cease to satisfy the user.
Viewing child pornography decreases the likelihood of an individual committing child sexual abuse. Reasons are that the pornography acts as a substitute for actual offenses. Simulated child pornography is suggested as an alternative so that real children are not harmed.
There is no correlation between viewing child pornography and acts of child sexual abuse, or that available evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions at all.
Views on increasing criminal sexual intent
General
One perspective is that exposure to child pornography promotes criminal sexual intent that otherwise would not exist. The promotion may take place via material that legitimizes sexual interest in minors. Anonymity (or belief that anonymity exists) may further loosen the internal restraints, facilitated by still or moving images, which makes actual criminal sexual behavior with children more probable if the person was already sexually motivated toward children, or, by creating new sexual interests in children. A review article states that these are plausible hypotheses,[4] but that there is a lack of clarity as to the general applicability of these mechanisms. The authors also note that, “among some groups of predisposed individuals, easy access to a wide variety of engrossing and high-quality child pornography could serve as a substitute for involvement with actual victims”.[4]
According to the National District Attorneys Association of America, “In light of the documented link between individuals who view child pornography and individuals who actually molest children, each child pornography case should be viewed as a red flag to the possibility of actual child molestation.”[5] John Carr, founding member of the United Kingdom Home Secretary’s Internet Task Force on Child Protection, in a report published by the NCH stated, “Many pedophiles acknowledge that exposure to child abuse images fuels their sexual fantasies and plays an important part in leading them to commit hands-on sexual offenses against children.”[3]
Research
A 1987 report by the U.S.A. National Institute of Justice described “a disturbing correlation” between traders of child pornography and acts of child molestation.[6] A 2008 longitudinal study of 341 convicted child molesters in America found that pornography’s use correlated significantly with their rate of sexually re-offending. Frequency of pornography use was primarily a further risk factor for higher-risk offenders, when compared with lower-risk offenders, and use of highly deviant pornography correlated with increased recidivism risk for all groups.[7] The majority of men who have been charged with or convicted of child pornography offenses show pedophilic profiles on phallometric testing.[8] A study with a sample of 201 adult male child pornography offenders using police databases examined charges or convictions after the index child pornography offense(s). 56% of the sample had a prior criminal record, 24% had prior contact sexual offenses, and 15% had prior child pornography offenses. One-third were concurrently charged with other crimes at the time they were charged for child pornography offenses. 17% of the sample offended again in some way during this time, and 4% committed a new contact sexual offense. Child pornography offenders with prior criminal records were significantly more likely to offend again in any way during the follow-up period. Child pornography offenders who had committed a prior or concurrent contact sexual offense were the most likely to offend again, either generally or sexually.[9]
According to the Mayo Clinic of the U.S.A., studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child, however they note that it is difficult to know how many people progress from computerized child pornography to physical acts against children and how many would have progressed to physical acts without the computer being involved.[10]
A study conducted by psychologists at the American Federal Bureau of Prisons has concluded that “many Internet child pornography offenders may be undetected child molesters”, finding a slightly higher percentage of molesters among child pornography offenders than the Mayo Clinic study, though they also “cautioned that offenders who volunteer for treatment may differ in their behavior from those who do not seek treatment.” The study was withdrawn by Bureau officials from a peer-reviewed journal which had accepted it for publication, due to concerns that the results might be misinterpreted. Some researchers argued that the findings “do not necessarily apply to the large and diverse group of adults who have at some point downloaded child pornography, and whose behavior is far too variable to be captured by a single survey”.[11] Child protection advocates and psychologists like Fred Berlin, who heads the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma, expressed disapproval over the failure to publish the report.[11]
Criticism
Dennis Howitt (1995) disagrees with such research, explaining the weakness of correlational studies. He argues that “one cannot simply take evidence that offenders use and buy pornography as sufficient to implicate pornography causally in their offending. The most reasonable assessment based on the available research literature is that the relationship between pornography, fantasy and offending is unclear.”[12]
A Swiss study reviewing the criminal record of 231 men who were charged with viewing child pornography found that those without a prior sexual conviction are unlikely to sexually assault a child.[13][14] The study found that in the 6 years before the 2002 police operation only 1% were known to have committed a hands-on sexual offense and only 1% committed a hands-on sex offense in the 6 years afterwards. The study reinforces previous research that consumers are well-educated and view other types of illegal pornography like acts involving animals and violence as well. Author Frank Urbaniok said it should not automatically be assumed that they were a risk for sexually assaulting a child and said: “Our results support the assumption that these consumers, in fact, form a distinct group of sex offenders. Probably, the motivation for consuming child pornography differs from the motivation to physically assault minors. Furthermore, the recidivism rates of 1% for hands-on and 4% for hands-off sex offences were quite low.”[14] A 2005 paper by Canadian researchers Michael Seto and Angela Eke found that of 201 men charged with child pornography offenses, 24% had committed prior offenses of sexual contact and 4% went on to commit subsequent sexual offenses after being charged or prosecuted.[14]
Views on reducing criminal sexual intent
Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, presented evidence that “[l]egalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse”. Results from the Czech Republic indicated, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes “decreased or essentially remained stable” following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. His research also indicated that the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.[2]
Diamond suggests to provide artificially created child pornography that does not involve any real children. His article relayed, “If availability of pornography can reduce sex crimes, it is because the use of certain forms of pornography to certain potential offenders is functionally equivalent to the commission of certain types of sex offences: both satisfy the need for psychosexual stimulants leading to sexual enjoyment and orgasm through masturbation. If these potential offenders have the option, they prefer to use pornography because it is more convenient, unharmful and undangerous. (Kutchinsky, 1994, pp. 21).”[2]
See also
Online Predator
References
Child porn consumers safe from prosecution in the Czech Republic
Diamond, M.; Jozifkova, E.; Weiss, P. (2010). “Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic”. Archives of Sexual Behavior 40 (5): 1037–1043; discussion 1043–50. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9696-y. PMID 21116701.
Carr, John (2004). “Child abuse, child pornography and the internet: Executive summary”. NCH.
Wolak, James; David Finkehor; Kimberly Mitchell; Michele Ybarra (February 2008). “Online “Predators” and Their Victims” (PDF). American Psychologist 63 (2): 111–128. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.2.111. PMID 18284279. Retrieved 2008-03-07.
“From Fantasy to Reality: The Link Between Viewing Child Pornography and Molesting Children”. Child Sexual Exploitation Update – Volume 1, Number 3, 2004. Archived from the original on 2008-01-11. Retrieved 2008-05-03.
“Remarks of Arnold I Burns Before the Florida Law Enforcement Committee on Obscenity, Organized Crime and Child Pornography”. NCJ 109133. National Institute of Justice. 1987-12-03.
Kingston DA, et al. (2008). “Pornography use and sexual aggression: the impact of frequency and type of pornography use on recidivism among sexual offenders.”. Aggress Behav 34 (34): 1–11. doi:10.1002/ab.20250. PMID 18307171.
Seto, M. C., Cantor, J. M., & Blanchard, R. (2006). Child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, U.S.A. 610–615.
Seto, M. C., & Eke, A. W. (2005). The criminal histories and later offending of child pornography offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 201–210.
RYAN C. W. HALL; RICHARD C. W. HALL (April 2007). “A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues” (PDF). Mayo Clin Proc 82 (4): 457–471. doi:10.4065/82.4.457. PMID 17418075. Retrieved 2008-05-09.
Julian Sher and Benedict Carey (2007-07-19). “Debate on Child Pornography’s Link To Molesting”. New York Times.
Howitt, Dennis (1995). “Paedophiles and Sexual Offences against Children,” chapter 6. Loughborough University, UK; John Wiley & Sons.
Endrass, Jérôme; Urbaniok, Frank (14 July 2009). “The consumption of Internet child pornography and violent and sex offending”. BMC Psychiatry 9 (43). doi:10.1186/1471-244X-9-43. Retrieved 15 December 2015.
“Study finds no link between child porn and sex abuse”. Retrieved 18 July 2012.
W.C. says
Having posted the study on the correlation between viewing child pornography and child sexual abuse, I’ll now state my opinion on the matter:
(1) Sex with children is unnatural. It is NOT a part of God’s design for human sexuality. In Genesis 1 God created a suitable helper for Adam. He created a sexually and emotionally mature woman. He did not give Adam preteen or teenage boys . He did not give Adam another man. He did not give Adam preteen or teenage girls. He gave Adam a peer of the female gender and instituted marriage right there in Eden.
(2) Matthew 5:27-28 says that in God’s eyes lusting is the same as committing the act.
(3) Anything that keeps such an unnatural act on one’s mind is totally unhealthy and inappropriate. I believe that it could fuel the desire to actually commit the acts depicted in the pornographic material. This doesn’t just apply to child pornography, but all forms of pornography.
(4) I believe that sooner or later the use of pornography progresses just like drug use. I believe after a while a tolerance is built and the consumer of pornography has to go to stronger and stronger material.
(5) Pornography destroys families and absolutely poisons and ensnares the minds of its consumers.
(6) Nothing wholesome ever comes out of viewing pornography of ANY KIND.
Leah says
God bless you WC
W.C. says
A most sincere thank you, Leah. As a Christian; a member of the body (Church) of Christ, I have to stand on the truth. Pornography is the most virulent of mental and emotional poisons. It is dehumanizing even when engaged in by legally consenting adults. They have no respect for themselves. If you can’t respect yourself, there can be no respect for others. It turns its participants into objects. It dehumanizes them.
Also, child pornography is not “harmless” because for it to be made, a child is being sexually abused. Young kids may learn the “nuts and bolts” of sexual behavior earlier than my generation did, but they have no construct upon which to even almost understand the emotional aspect. Also, no one has any idea what is done to secure the child’s participation. They could be psychologically abused, starved, threatened, whipped….the possibilities are frightening. Even if they bribe the child with expensive toys, etc. it’s destructive because they train the child to use their bodies as a currency. It teaches them that the most important parts of their bodies are their reproductive organs. That’s not just a shame, it’s a sin and a crime against nature and all that is human and decent. So to say child pornography is harmless, is the vilest and most depraved of lies.
W.C. says
Leah, I also must say this as well: The people who want to consume child pornography or who sexually abuse children are very sick in their minds. I don’t mean that as a slur. I mean they have a very serious mental illness that requires incarceration for a long enough period that they decide that freedom is more important than satisfying an urge for a fleeting sexual fulfillment. Once they have served their time, in most instances they’re going to be re-released back into society. Does it not honestly make good sense to keep a close watch on them, but do it in a way that gives them options to have some major stabilizers in their lives such as a job and a home and access to a good support system with family, a church family, treatment, and social services?
I don’t look at it as giving them undeserved breaks. I view it as making the rest of society a little safer. The ones who actually deal with these offenders on a daily basis say that these sex offender laws actually hamper their mission to monitor and stabilize these offenders. I cannot in good conscience support laws that would force these offenders to be out on the street in stormy, rainy, dangerously hot or cold weather. I don’t want to be kind to them for who they are, but for who I am and who my Lord and Savior is. If you read the Bible, it clearly teaches that those who refuse to show mercy in this life will receive no mercy in the next life. When we stand before Christ in judgement, we will most surely want His mercy and not His justice. Wouldn’t you agree???
So many say “lock ’em up and throw away the key.” I really support that if they are released onto strict supervision that includes mandatory parole-like conditions, G.P.S. monitoring, specialized sex offender treatment, and regular meetings with a parole officer and they still re-offend. At that point they’ve amply proven that nothing short of incarceration in a tightly controlled environment is going to keep them from acting on their deviant, unnatural urges. I also support that when overt physical cruelty and literal violence was involved.
Leah says
I appreciate your opinion WC. As a fellow Christian I adore your compassion.. Pray I can one day share your optimism & hope for people like Ramond Rosa because I can not see mercy for him or anyone who abuses children. I honestly hopes he rots in hell.
W.C. says
Leah. read Matthew 6:14-15. You must learn to forgive or God will not forgive you. Just before that is the Lord’s Prayer. Forgive us our debts AS WE FORGIVE OUR DEBTORS. That means show us forgiveness as we show others forgiveness. If we show none, we will be shown none.
W.C. says
Deserved favor is not mercy. It is justuce. Undeserved favor is mercy. Mercy is not dropping the hammer when it is deserved. None of us will want God’s justice. We all will need his mercy.