Oklahoma State Agency Lacks Sex Offender Treatment Funds

July 30, 2009

Sex offenders are supposed to receive treatment while behind bars so they won’t offend again when they are released from prison.  Now it comes to light that Department of Corrections has space for only 55 offenders, while there are more than 3,000 sex offenders in Department of Corrections custody.

Inmates who are closest to completing their prison sentence are given priority when there are openings because research shows such programs are more effective just before release.  But the resources such as bed space and program manpower limit the size of the sex offender treatment program, and the capacity is not likely to expand, Jerry Massie, Department of Corrections spokesman said.

One criminal defense lawyer in Oklahoma County intends to ask a judge to release his client early from prison so the client can continue at his own expense sex offender treatment which is not available in prison.

Private treatment is available from a few sources, such as Richard Kishur, an expert who created the Department of Corrections sex offender treatment program.  This criminal defense attorney is not the only one who has argued that getting treatment to change future behavior is the main thing society should seek.  Otherwise, a punishing society can insist on putting people into  prison, only to let them out eventually, unchanged.  So if the prison system cannot provide that change, the offender should be kept out of prison to pursue private treatment, outside prison.

Randy Loop, chairman of the Oklahoma Coalition for Sex Offender Management, said community-based treatment is a cheaper alternative than prison.  Loop said recidivism rates are low for sex offenders, which makes them good candidates for treatment in lieu of incarceration.  Loop said studies show 13 to 15 percent of sex offenders are re-arrested.

Prosecutors, of course, prefer that sex offenders go to prison, and if treatment is received in prison, fine.  No surprise there is an emphasis on punishment from them.  Unfortunately, the tax payers are not willing to come up more and more tax money needed for more and more prisons.  The Department of Corrections does not have any sex offender programs out in the community, outside incarceration.  Such a program might possibly be a less expensive approach that could address the need which Department of Corrections is not now addressing.

The Department of Corrections program, for those lucky enough to get in, lasts up to 16 months, depending on the risk of the offender.  It takes a minimum of one year to complete.  There are 200 people on the waiting list for the program which has 55 slots.  The program is designed to help offenders understand the effect that sexual deviancy has on victims and society.  Offenders learn and discuss intervention strategies.  Psychological and psychosexual testing is used to plan treatment.  Polygraph examinations help determine each offender’s progress through the program.

Advertisements

Wrong Facts in Child Molestation Case Give Wrong Results

June 24, 2009

Bill O’Reilly’s “No Spin Zone” told its viewers last week about “an injustice in Oklahoma.”  The story concerns the charge of child molestation in McAlester, Oklahoma, against one David Harold Earls.  O’Reilly stated as fact that a 4-year old girl accused the man of child molestation, and a 5-year old boy corroborated this allegation.  With these as stated “facts”, O’Reilly then gave himself up to outrage that defendant David Harold Earls was sentenced to only one year in prison for this heinous crime, and why didn’t the Attorney General investigate this and why didn’t Governor Brad Henry do something about this and was everyone covering up because Governor Henry went to school with the sentencing judge so it’s an obvious cover-up. That was O’Reilly’s claim, that the District Attorney and the judge should be reprimanded because the result was not fair from the facts of the case.

No doubt child molestation is a detestable crime, and anyone guilty of molesting a 4-year old child deserves more than a one-year sentence.  In this case, defendant Earls received in addition to the one year sentence 19 years on suspended sentence, little difference.  And Earls is predicted to live only for three more years due to illness, also no significant difference.  Regardless, the issue is the justification of such a sentence for such a crime.

Now the Daily Oklahoman has devoted a front-page story to the case.  That story gives a deeper look at the evidence in the case, critical evidence which O’Reilly did not mention, critical evidence which the District Attorney had to face in deciding whether to take the case to jury trial or offer some plea agreement to prevent defendant Earls from going scott free.

It appears that what O’Reilly gave as “evidence” is only one version from the witnesses.
The 5-year old boy did at one point accuse David Harold Earls of touching inappropriately the 4-year old girl. Then the boy changed his story and denied his earlier statement.

The 4-year old girl did indeed accuse David Harold Earls at one time. However, the child could not testify as a witness, even by remote transmission outside the courtroom.   She came to court to testify as a witness in a pretrial hearing, and Judge Thomas Bartheld, the judge in the case, tried five times to have her sworn as a witness.  The little girl was unable to settle down enough take the oath as a witness.  She never did took it.  Does O’Reilly suggest the little girl could be a witness without taking the oath of a witness?  Would O’Reilly agree to be tried by a jury, facing life in prison, in a trial in which witnesses were not required to take an oath before testifying?  For centuries, all witnesses have been required to take the oath.  Does O’Reilly advocate elimination of this practice?   He simply does not mention this fact.

The physical evidence of abuse was reported to be“consistent with” abuse.   This evidence might be of some help, but only if some witness could link it to defendant Earls, show Earls  was responsible for it.  There were no such witnesses, so it was of no help.

The District Attorney, J.D. Miller, stated his staff knew they could not prove their case against defendant Earls.   The standard of persuasion for proof to a jury is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and the prosecution staff recognized this case was overflowing with doubts.  So the prosecution chose to get the most they could get against Earls.

Apparently O’Reilly would have had the prosecutor present the case to the jury, obtain an inevitable verdict of “Not Guilty”, and then blame the jury or blame the prosecutor for presenting a faulty case.  Blame somebody, anybody, just get headlines.  O’Reilly does not understand or forgets that the prosecutor does not manufacture evidence.  The prosecutor can only present the case as he finds it.

O’Reilly sent his reporter, Geraldo Rivera, a law school graduate himself, with his television crew and a microphone to Judge Barteld’s chambers, most certainly for an ambush interview. When Judge Bartheld declined an interview, they claimed the judge was “hiding.”  Surprise. More sizzle, more conspiracy, no facts.

The 4-year girl’s grandmother clearly states the District Attorney and the judge in this case did the best they could with the evidence.  “We were over a barrel because of the children’s inability to testify with any consistency,” the grandmother stated.  “One minute they would be OK with testifying, and the next minute they would want to play or be crying to get out of the courtroom.”  The children’s mother said it became apparent the children were incapable of testifying.  (“INCAPABLE OF TESTIFYING!”)  Each time they were questioned about the abuse, the children had behavioral problems.  “For my children, this was the best deal, “the mother said.  O’Reilly does not even mention the approval of the one-year sentence by the  victim’s grandmother and mother, does not mention their stated understanding of why the plea agreement was offered by the District Attorney and approved by Judge Bartheld.  Why did O’Reilly omit any reference to the mother or grandmother?  Why did he omit any reference to the inability of the children to testify?

Now defendant’s daughter, Denise Earls, now 38 years old, last week claimed Earls raped her when she was a child.  Does this that make the evidence any better in the case under discussion or does that just make Earls look more guilty?  One cannot help wondering why this woman waited for so many decades before coming forward, why she did not speak up earlier to protect other girls from defendant Earls if her claim is true.  Regardless, it’s too late for new evidence for the case under discussion.  Defendant Earls plead and was sentenced over a month ago, and there is no legal provision for the District Attorney to undo that deal now.  New allegations of past wrongdoing by this defendant do not change the fact that there were no witnesses available at the time Earls’ case was called for jury trial.   And the addition of such circumstantial evidence, if ruled admissible, would not have proved Earls committed this crime in this case.

The 4-year old child and her mother have now moved away, trying to get on with their lives.  One other victim in this case was the truth. The deliberate twisting of the evidence by Bill O’Reilly was unfortunate, obviously given to add sensation at the expense of truth.  I, for one, used to enjoy O’Reilly’s take.  Anytime I watch him from now on, however, I will wonder whether he is fairly and truthfully presenting the facts.


Sex Crimes and Sex Offender Registration Requirements in 2009

April 5, 2009

When the federal government stepped into the sex registration business, it doubled the number of Oklahoma’s sex offenders who must register for life. In 2007, Oklahoma adopted a classification system to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Act., more formally known as the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. Adam Walsh, of course, is the murdered son of John Walsh, creator of the television show, “America’s Most Wanted.” Since his young son was kidnaped and murdered in 1981, John Walsh has been a leading advocate to increase punishment and monitoring of sex offenders. He helped found the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

In 2007, Oklahoma adopted a new three-tier system of registration for those living in Oklahoma who have been convicted of a sex offense. The intent of the system is to prevent any re-offending by those registered. Failure to register is punishable by prison time.

But critics point out that the registration system assumes every person is the worst possible offender. They say the system uses a sledge hammer to crush a flea. Oklahoma has about 6,000 registered sex offenders. Of these, 5,026 are required for life. Another 228 of them are required to register only for 25 years, and in the lowest tier, 840 registrants in tier one are required to register for only 15 years. Those required to register for life have been classified as aggravated or habitual.

This three-tier system did not exist before 2007. The new law required the state to evaluate and reevaluate every sex offender for placement in the new classification system. While only 40% of the total registration population used to be assigned to the aggravated or habitual category, now more than 80% are in that category, earning the requirement for lifetime registration.

The classifications are determined by a committee comprised of prosecutors, counselors and “victim advocates.”. It is rumored that no one wants to be the one on the committee who appears “soft’ on classifications, perhaps out of fear that the committee might classify someone in a lower category and then that person re-offend. It’s always safer to classify everyone in the maximum category, especially when the only ones who might complain are sex offenders, no big voting block.

However, Randy Lopp, head of the Oklahoma Coalition for Sex Offender Management, says offenders should be classified according to their risk level rather than their offense of record, as they are now. He says “accepted research” in the field indicates that seventy-five percent of sexual offenders are not re-arrested in a fifteen-year period.

An even more understanding approach is offered by Richard Kishur, Ph.D., an Oklahoma City counselor who specializes in treating sex offenders. He suggests that ideally sex offenders should be evaluated before they are sentenced to determine if they are a risk to re-offend. This assumes that such evaluation can be accurately done, and Dr. Kishur and other experts would say it can be. This approach would allow important resources to be aimed at those few individuals who are a significant risk to society, persons from whom society needs protection, while allowing other sex offenders to live their lives without such maximum, unnecessary intrusion as now required by life registration.

For instance, doesn’t it seem overly harsh to require lifetime registration for an individual who, when somewhat inebriated, urinated against the side of his truck, while being seen by some women? When someone is required to register as a sex offender, they are governed by many restrictions, such as where he can live. Furthermore, there are reports of family members of the convicted sex offender having authorities periodically show up at their homes, barge into the home without providing any information identifying themselves, and proceed to look through the entire home to make sure the “sex offender” is not living there (in a restricted neighborhood). This kind of situation where even relatives are harassed points out the potential dangers of a system that assigns never ending penalties for minor offenses.

For all of these reasons, even a relatively minor sex charge can cause severe repercussions for an individual and therefore, it’s critical someone charged with a sex offense seek an experienced and competent criminal defense lawyer. My site at http://www.oklahomacriminallawoffice.com provides advice on how to choose the right criminal attorney to protect your rights and I encourage you to visit it for more information on this important consideration.


Sexual Assault Charges Dropped Against Duke Athletes

April 17, 2007

Just Because You’re Innocent It Doesn’t Mean You Won’t Be Charged with a Crime.

The situation in North Carolina with the three Duke lacrosse team members who were charged a little over a year ago with sexual assault against a stripper at a party is a current day example that “witch hunts” are still alive today. In the last few days it was determined that those charges were unfounded and were dropped completely. The North Carolina Attorney General, Roy Cooper, who took over the case from Durham County District Attorney, Mike Nifong, related that his investigation led to an evaluation that no assault actually happened.

The stripper alleged that the three students sexually assaulted her in a bathroom of a house hosting a team party where she was paid to perform. However, there was no DNA evidence, there were significant inconsistencies, no other witness who substantiated her claim, and the accuser contradicted herself. One of the students had an ATM receipt supporting an alibi, and it was learned that the woman had made similar gang-rape accusations ten years earlier, with no charges being filed. With all of these problems with the allegations, it’s difficult to understand why a District Attorney would file charges in the first place.

In fact, District Attorney Nifong’s handling of this case caused Nifong, himself, to be charged with ethics violations. Attorney General, Cooper said “This case shows the enormous consequences of overreaching by a prosecutor.” Cooper has even urged that a law be passed to allow the North Carolina Supreme Court to remove a district attorney, when warranted.

In today’s violence filled culture, rape and sexual assault generally carry stiff penalties and I’m not arguing against the basic premise that such a crime should be punished. However, when those in authority, who are responsible for carrying out justice act in a vigilante fashion, because they are so intent on furthering their own career, or perhaps, they think anyone who is accused is automatically guilty, we’re in danger of losing basic rights our country was founded on. Whether it is a law enforcement officer, a district attorney, or a judge who is clouded with ambition — wanting to be seen as tough on crime at all costs — when they overreach their authority and rush to condemn before evidence supports it –that authority figure is every bit as wrong as the “purported” criminal act.

Let’s consider what has happened to the three innocent college students for more than a year. They’ve been subjected to national negative notoriety, the worry and fear of being sent to prison for something they didn’t do, as well as the possible ruin of their future career potential. With such charges hanging over them, they lived in torment. I imagine when they went out in public, other people looked at them skeptically, wondering if they were criminals and that employers probably were not jumping at the chance to hire them for summer work. One of them graduated about the time they were indicted and the other two were temporarily suspended. While the two have been invited back to Duke, neither one has accepted. They both lost a whole year of their lives. Then, how about the huge legal bills they and their families had to pay for such a serious accusation. Estimates of the costs have been speculated at as high as $3 million.

I know that many people think that good, law abiding citizens won’t be falsely accused, or that if by some twist of fate that did happen, the authorities would quickly determine from the evidence that it was a mistake and the whole thing would soon get cleared up. Another general consensus is that “where there is smoke there is fire” and in those rare situations when someone is charged with a crime they didn’t commit, that they were probably involved with the wrong crowd, which is why they were accused in the first place.

But in this case, we have three athletes, studying at Duke University who just happened to go to a team party. These young men weren’t part of a gang, drug dealers, or involved in holding up convenience stores. Yes, there was alcohol at the party and a stripper, which was not the wisest decision. However, how many adults can say they never went to party where there was drinking. And if you just watch a little TV you will be exposed to many situations of scantily clad women and men, some instances of suggestive dancing — on prime time, seemingly saying that such activities are OK — so why do we expect our youth to be wiser than older adults with more life experience? Remember the Bible verse, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

Instances like this are evidence that it is a myth that only people guilty of something are charged with crimes. Moreover, people accused of a sexual assault or other crimes need a strong defense by competent legal representation to fight against those authorities in the system operating with personal motives instead of seeking truth and fairness. Otherwise, those innocent people can become the “victims”.

Fortunately, the three falsely accused young men’s lawyers fiercely worked to ensure the truth came out in the end. You never know when you or a loved one could find yourself in a situation where you need a talented criminal defense lawyer, which is why I invite you to visit my website at http://www.edmondgeary.com to find out how to choose one. This can be a life changing decision.