A disturbing new online human-tracking program has been implemented at my local Sheriff’s office, and throughout Washington State. Offender Watch may sound like your friendly Neighborhood Watch program, complete with block parties and coffee socials. But Offender Watch is not about uniting communities, it’s about dividing them. It’s about spreading fear and encouraging discrimination. And it certainly isn’t about voluntary participation, as those being targeted have not given their consent to be followed.
Here's how the company begins their promo: “Offender Watch is the nation’s leading registered sex offender management and community notification tool, with hundreds of leading agencies in dozens of states utilizing it.”
Just because it’s popular doesn’t make it any less wrong on a moral, legal, or spiritual level. Interning Japanese-Americans in concentration camps during World War II was popular, but that didn’t make it right. Slavery, lynching, and Fascism have all been popular at certain times and places, too.
The promo continues: “Offender Watch provides the most accurate and timely information available, and now this information is available to you!” Having paid for my transgressions many times over already, I’m sure you’ll understand when I don’t stand up and shout “Hurray! I’m a target all over again!”
In my previous post I explained that my Sheriff’s sex offender profile—as limited as it was—was not entirely correct, so I looked up my new Offender Watch profile to see if the bold claims the company makes are true. So, is my new profile accurate? No. Not only is my current location still incorrect, my new Offender Watch profile contains the title of a crime I've never seen before.
As crime titles go, Sexual Battery has always made me cringe. People usually assume that Sexual Battery means sexually violent—where force was used and injury was done. But this inflammatory term also covers many clearly non-violent transgressions, sometimes no more than an inappropriate touch. Like my conviction for kissing my roommate’s thigh eighteen years ago. On my new Offender Watch profile, Sexual Battery has been replaced with Indecent Liberties. Ironically, the definition of this crime sounds a whole lot closer to the truth. However, neither one of these crimes is the offense for which I was put on the sex offender registry.
Is my new Offender Watch profile timely? No. When the only information presented is an ominous title of a crime that occurred many years ago, how could it be timely? The photograph on my profile is almost six years old. Back then I was still a practicing alcoholic, thirty pounds heavier, jobless, broke and homeless.
Since then I’ve gotten clean and sober. I’ve grown a creative business that I love doing, with loyal and trusting clients throughout the county. The rundown property I once rented as a last resort has since been purchased by me, transformed into a lush garden, and on it I'm now building the cabin of my dreams. Today I have the best relationship I’ve ever had with my own family, and for four years I’ve been involved with a wonderful woman who supports my success in every way.
Although I will always deeply regret the crimes I committed many years ago, those crimes are not who I am – and never were. And in the years since then, with hard work, sobriety, and self-examination, I have actively grown and changed. Today I try to use what I’ve learned from those poor choices to help others avoid making the same mistakes.
Since all this information is available to anyone who cares to investigate, I take exception when Offender Watch says, “the most accurate and timely information available.” In fact, I feel that Offender Watch ought to be honest with their users and responsible by saying, “We only publish information that supports a perception of imminent danger,” no matter how old the offenses are, or what the offenders are doing with their lives. No matter whether an ex-offender is now a father, lawyer, artist, activist, or businessman; no matter whether he climbs mountains or champions the homeless.
Human beings are more than the mistakes they’ve made, and no one on earth can be accurately judged by their mistakes alone. Wouldn’t the public good be better served by putting out information about people’s lives, skills and positive potential, not just their crimes? Shouldn’t the public be given enough information to accurately make its own assessments about the danger, or lack of it, that ex-offenders pose to the community?
Offender Watch warns that sex offenders move frequently. What they don’t say is that this is often due to being harassed, threatened and ostracized as a result of being on the sex offender registry. Nor that by making it easier for people to do these things, there will surely be a lot more forced-offender-moving thanks to their program. Sometimes offenders are moved right off the face of the earth because they are murdered by unstable people who get their addresses from online sources like Offender Watch. Like these two men here. And another two men here.
Oddly enough, Offender Watch admits that only 5% of convicted sex offenders re-offend—less if they have a stable environment. So let’s get this straight: At least 95% of the people targeted by this program pose no threat to the community? Interesting use of tax dollars.
Offender Watch wraps up their promo by encouraging people to sign up for their email-alerts: “Tell your friends and neighbors and be sure to register your home, work, school, gym, day care, park, soccer field, parents or children's homes - any address of interest to you!”
Considering the way Offender Watch "manages" information, I hope all potential users think long and deeply about signing up for anything that requires them to register with this company.
Showing posts with label police action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police action. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Where Do The Registered Go For Answers?
When you’re on the sex offender registry, getting straight answers from law enforcement—or any government official—can be incredibly difficult. But ever since my re-classification more than six years ago—from having no risk-level at all in Colorado, to having the highest risk-level possible in Washington State—it’s been virtually impossible to get any answers whatsoever.
The fact is that I like the deputy sheriff responsible for managing sex offender-related issues in my area. From the start he recognized how minor my transgressions were on the scale of "sex" crimes. And he told me so—off-the-record. He assured me it wasn’t personal when his department hung my photo on the streets of the community, had it published in the local newspaper and posted on the Internet, knowing full well how much trouble it could cause me. He listened when I told him about being threatened, rejected for work, forced into homelessness and even jailed for failing to secure a job and housing under the monster-level label. When my new female friend asked him if what I had told her about my crimes was truthful, he patiently confirmed my account: No, I had not raped anyone, never molested a child, and had no violence in my history. I was not considered dangerous, he admitted, by him or the sheriff’s department.
Why then had I been classified at the most-dangerous level? The supervisor’s answer was really no answer at all. “I’m sorry, but there’s nothing I can do. I’m just following the laws.”
In 2004 I sent a letter to the sheriff’s department, formally requesting a copy of my re-classification documents so I could determine exactly what factors were used to justify the “upgrade.” It was the department’s attorney who responded, saying that my risk-level assessment was classified. I have never understood why. What point is there in blocking my access to my own documents?
One of my concerns was about my failure to register. I had discovered some evidence suggesting that (in Washington State) if you are put on the sex offender registry for a misdemeanor crime (which I had been), then a failure to register is supposed to be likewise a misdemeanor offense. But after missing the registration deadline in Washington, I was convicted of a Class C felony.
The Washington State Attorney General only passed the buck: contact your local prosecutor. So I sent a polite letter to the prosecutor’s office asking if my felony conviction had been correct after all in light of what I found. I received no response.
Meanwhile, a letter to a legal aid organization did bring a timely reply: Sorry—we don’t advocate for sex offenders.
In 2005 a vigilante murdered two Level 3 sex offenders in Bellingham, just a two-hour drive from where I live. Police there believed he had a “hit list” of Level 3 offenders collected from the Internet. As the only Level 3 in my county at that time, knowing this psychopath was at large worried me enough to call the supervisor. I wanted to know what his department was doing to protect me from becoming the next victim. The supervisor knew nothing about the situation. No action was (or seemingly would be) taken.
In 2007, a Seattle newspaper reporter discovered that authorities had made false statements on my Denver probation reports from 2001. These erroneous reports had been forwarded to Washington when I was charged with failing to register, and likely contributed to my reclassification – but of course I was still prohibited from seeing the records. Then I learned that Level 3s in Washington State were now subject to GPS monitoring under newly passed laws. So I wrote another letter to the supervisor, asking for clarification on both these issues. Again I got no response. And another year went by.
In 2008, I began building a small house on the property I had purchased. The county building department gave me a new address—different from what had been posted on the sheriff’s website. I had read about a registered man being convicted of failure to register for moving into a guest house with a slightly different address, in spite of it being on the same property. So I decided not to take any chances. This time I left a voice mail for the supervisor, giving him my new address. No acknowledgement came. The incorrect information is still on the website.
In 2008, the K.I.D.S. ACT was signed into law. This requires local law enforcement to create databases with computer identifiers for all registered sex offenders. My new questions were: Do I need to provide this information myself? If so, how long do I have before penalties are imposed? And to whom do I submit it? These are still my questions, for when I saw the supervisor in public recently I asked him why he hadn’t responded to my inquiries. “I’ve been busy.”
It seems to me that when you possess the authority to brand people it comes with certain responsibilities toward those you brand. Carrying a monster’s label is a very serious and dangerous business. It keeps those close to me vulnerable to all kinds of insidious trouble. It bars me from countless aspects of society and restricts my efforts to be a productive member of that society. It keeps me living in cruel and unusual fear.
When the state requires us to follow the ever-increasing body of sex offender laws, getting accurate and timely information becomes critical. So when authorities seem opposed to providing us with any, but we are still held to the edict that “ignorance is no excuse,” it seems we are being set up to fail and fall. Are any authorities willing to provide some honest information about this?
The fact is that I like the deputy sheriff responsible for managing sex offender-related issues in my area. From the start he recognized how minor my transgressions were on the scale of "sex" crimes. And he told me so—off-the-record. He assured me it wasn’t personal when his department hung my photo on the streets of the community, had it published in the local newspaper and posted on the Internet, knowing full well how much trouble it could cause me. He listened when I told him about being threatened, rejected for work, forced into homelessness and even jailed for failing to secure a job and housing under the monster-level label. When my new female friend asked him if what I had told her about my crimes was truthful, he patiently confirmed my account: No, I had not raped anyone, never molested a child, and had no violence in my history. I was not considered dangerous, he admitted, by him or the sheriff’s department.
Why then had I been classified at the most-dangerous level? The supervisor’s answer was really no answer at all. “I’m sorry, but there’s nothing I can do. I’m just following the laws.”
In 2004 I sent a letter to the sheriff’s department, formally requesting a copy of my re-classification documents so I could determine exactly what factors were used to justify the “upgrade.” It was the department’s attorney who responded, saying that my risk-level assessment was classified. I have never understood why. What point is there in blocking my access to my own documents?
One of my concerns was about my failure to register. I had discovered some evidence suggesting that (in Washington State) if you are put on the sex offender registry for a misdemeanor crime (which I had been), then a failure to register is supposed to be likewise a misdemeanor offense. But after missing the registration deadline in Washington, I was convicted of a Class C felony.
The Washington State Attorney General only passed the buck: contact your local prosecutor. So I sent a polite letter to the prosecutor’s office asking if my felony conviction had been correct after all in light of what I found. I received no response.
Meanwhile, a letter to a legal aid organization did bring a timely reply: Sorry—we don’t advocate for sex offenders.
In 2005 a vigilante murdered two Level 3 sex offenders in Bellingham, just a two-hour drive from where I live. Police there believed he had a “hit list” of Level 3 offenders collected from the Internet. As the only Level 3 in my county at that time, knowing this psychopath was at large worried me enough to call the supervisor. I wanted to know what his department was doing to protect me from becoming the next victim. The supervisor knew nothing about the situation. No action was (or seemingly would be) taken.
In 2007, a Seattle newspaper reporter discovered that authorities had made false statements on my Denver probation reports from 2001. These erroneous reports had been forwarded to Washington when I was charged with failing to register, and likely contributed to my reclassification – but of course I was still prohibited from seeing the records. Then I learned that Level 3s in Washington State were now subject to GPS monitoring under newly passed laws. So I wrote another letter to the supervisor, asking for clarification on both these issues. Again I got no response. And another year went by.
In 2008, I began building a small house on the property I had purchased. The county building department gave me a new address—different from what had been posted on the sheriff’s website. I had read about a registered man being convicted of failure to register for moving into a guest house with a slightly different address, in spite of it being on the same property. So I decided not to take any chances. This time I left a voice mail for the supervisor, giving him my new address. No acknowledgement came. The incorrect information is still on the website.
In 2008, the K.I.D.S. ACT was signed into law. This requires local law enforcement to create databases with computer identifiers for all registered sex offenders. My new questions were: Do I need to provide this information myself? If so, how long do I have before penalties are imposed? And to whom do I submit it? These are still my questions, for when I saw the supervisor in public recently I asked him why he hadn’t responded to my inquiries. “I’ve been busy.”
It seems to me that when you possess the authority to brand people it comes with certain responsibilities toward those you brand. Carrying a monster’s label is a very serious and dangerous business. It keeps those close to me vulnerable to all kinds of insidious trouble. It bars me from countless aspects of society and restricts my efforts to be a productive member of that society. It keeps me living in cruel and unusual fear.
When the state requires us to follow the ever-increasing body of sex offender laws, getting accurate and timely information becomes critical. So when authorities seem opposed to providing us with any, but we are still held to the edict that “ignorance is no excuse,” it seems we are being set up to fail and fall. Are any authorities willing to provide some honest information about this?
Thursday, November 20, 2008
On Washington’s Most-Wanted for What?
What did John Michael Isley do to become one of Washington's Most Wanted Fugitives? Kidnap a child? Rape someone? Kill someone? Apparently just failing to announce his departure from Washington and arrival in Texas, a horrendous place to be on the sex offender registry. Can we really blame him?
Many years ago, when Isley was a minor, he was convicted of indecent liberties over an incident with his cousin. Here's a report KOMO TV did on his Island County ostracism back in 2003.
And here's the report of the recent "manhunt" for him in Texas from News9
I see no evidence that Isley committed any SEX crimes in the interval. You tell me: Is failure to register a compelling reason to be on a Most-Wanted List? Is this victimless crime a compelling reason for police and the media to incite more public fear over former sex offenders being "on the loose"? It appears that Isley wanted to be near his family, as he was caught visiting relatives. Now I'll bet he is facing ten years in a Texas prison for what seems to be just a desire to be left alone.
Many years ago, when Isley was a minor, he was convicted of indecent liberties over an incident with his cousin. Here's a report KOMO TV did on his Island County ostracism back in 2003.
And here's the report of the recent "manhunt" for him in Texas from News9
I see no evidence that Isley committed any SEX crimes in the interval. You tell me: Is failure to register a compelling reason to be on a Most-Wanted List? Is this victimless crime a compelling reason for police and the media to incite more public fear over former sex offenders being "on the loose"? It appears that Isley wanted to be near his family, as he was caught visiting relatives. Now I'll bet he is facing ten years in a Texas prison for what seems to be just a desire to be left alone.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
No Police Action (for me) This Halloween
Last Halloween, South Carolina sex offenders were rounded up and forced to sit out the night with police. This year, Maryland sex offenders were forced to hang signs on their doors (absurdly designed as bright-orange pumpkins, no less) reading, "No Candy At This Residence." Who comes up with these ideas?
It's been five years since I moved to this small town in Washington and experienced the nightmare that followed—aggressive public notification, banning from businesses, whispers, stares, and threats on the street. Things have calmed down enormously since then, and local authorities have backed way off. But the reality is I’m still on the registry. I still live with the fear of retroactive laws changes, sex crimes that may be committed in my area, and the real probability of attack from vigilantes. (Sometimes I hear shouts as people drive by my place at night.)
This year I'm happy to report that my Halloween passed without incident. No police orders in my mailbox, no scarlet pumpkins on my doorstep. But what about next year? And the one after that? I have never offended a child in my life. But that doesn't keep people from assuming I'm a molester. Never has a case been documented of a child being molested while trick-or-treating. But this didn't keep people from going crazy with the idea elsewhere. By next Halloween the Adam Walsh Act may already be law here in Washington. What will happen to me then?
It's been five years since I moved to this small town in Washington and experienced the nightmare that followed—aggressive public notification, banning from businesses, whispers, stares, and threats on the street. Things have calmed down enormously since then, and local authorities have backed way off. But the reality is I’m still on the registry. I still live with the fear of retroactive laws changes, sex crimes that may be committed in my area, and the real probability of attack from vigilantes. (Sometimes I hear shouts as people drive by my place at night.)
This year I'm happy to report that my Halloween passed without incident. No police orders in my mailbox, no scarlet pumpkins on my doorstep. But what about next year? And the one after that? I have never offended a child in my life. But that doesn't keep people from assuming I'm a molester. Never has a case been documented of a child being molested while trick-or-treating. But this didn't keep people from going crazy with the idea elsewhere. By next Halloween the Adam Walsh Act may already be law here in Washington. What will happen to me then?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
