Jaycee Dugard and Sex Offender Registry Laws


Marchers wear buttons as they parade through South Lake Tahoe to celebrate the reappearance of Jaycee Dugard. (Max Whittaker/Reuters)

GUEST BLOGGER: Wayne A. Logan

When Phillip Garrido was arrested in connection with the kidnapping 18 years ago of Jaycee Dugard, questions immediately arose how Garrido, a man with a history of sexual assault, could have slipped through the system. We asked author Wayne A. Logan to sort through the vagaries of the law. Logan, a professor at Florida State University College of Law, is author of "Knowledge as Power: Criminal Registration and Community Notification Laws in America," which was published in July by Stanford University Press.

The alleged kidnapping, sexual assault and 18-year imprisonment of Jaycee Dugard highlights the need to reassess the nation's sex offender registration and community notification laws.

Suspect Phillip Garrido was on California's registry, which like other state registries is known to be rife with inaccuracies and missing data. Garrido, however, was not among the scofflaws. He dutifully kept authorities apprised of his whereabouts, and his identifying information (including home address) was prominently posted on the Internet due to California's concern about the significant offenses in his history.

Perversely, Garrido was thus a "success."

But his sustained depravity highlights a reality long known to police: Individuals determined to commit repeated sexual crimes will find a way to do so. Garrido not only was compliant when his crimes came to light in 2009 but also was on California's registry when he abducted Dugard in 1991.

Moreover, even if community notification was then in effect -- it was not implemented until 1996 -- Garrido committed his crime outside his community, meaning a family like the Dugards would not have benefited anyway from the knowledge of a predator's proximity.

A reassessment of the laws will need to surmount at least two major obstacles. First, any effort will be distracted by the knowledge that human error played a role in this case -- police repeatedly failed to aggressively investigate Garrido. If registries are to exist, individuals such as Garrido surely should be on them. Yet, we know that registries contain far more individuals than can realistically be monitored, including many low-risk convicts.

This problem calls to mind Justice Potter Stewart's comment that "[w]hen everything is classified then nothing is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless." There will always be a risk of police errors, but the nation's over-inclusive system significantly heightens this possibility.

Second, any effort at reevaluation will likely face political resistance. Politicians raising the possibility of a reevaluation risk being branded as soft on crime or -- worse -- regarded as disrespectful of victims after whom laws are often named. Moreover, one often hears that the laws are justified "if one child is saved."

But the nationwide social experiment of registration and community notification laws, affecting hundreds of thousands of individuals and their families, imposes significant costs. It also distracts from other -- possibly preferable -- public safety strategies. The system demands a closer look. Indeed, it would be difficult to identify any other social policy of such magnitude that has evaded a critical review.

We must also be careful to avoid allowing Garrido to serve as a benchmark. His targeting of Dugard, who was unknown to him in 1991, is not typical of sexual offenses. Indeed, while "stranger danger" has always motivated the laws, in reality the vast majority of sex crimes are committed by people known to the victims.

Allowing Garrido's gruesome crime to drive public discourse will fuel the tendency to play down the very real harms of such crimes and make it even less likely that they will receive the attention they warrant.

By Steven E. Levingston |  September 9, 2009; 5:30 AM ET Politics , Steven Levingston
Previous: President Obama: Don't Forget About Doctors | Next: Shoddy Forensic Science: Fact and Fiction

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



It tragic that after so many laws have been passed, and so many lives harmed by them, people are just now realizing how devastatingly ineffective and expensive this has been for our society.

We need to stop this madness and start passing laws based on evidence of effectiveness - not just because they 'feel good' or encourage vengeance.

While we're at it, we must also consider restoring due process rights to the accused. Convicting or railroading innocent people into plea bargains or prison without evidence, without facing their accuser, without 'innocent until proven guilty' has to be stopped. This is a blight on us as a people and a mockery of our Constitution.

Constitutional rights must be restored as well - ex post facto and retroactive laws, living restrictions, and public shaming has produced a sub class of American citizens, the majority being undeserving. This doesn't even begin to address the collateral damaged done to inocent family members - the spouses, children, parents, siblings and extended family or aquaintances of those rightly or wrongly deemed 'sex offenders'.

We must also discourage false accusers at what ever the cost to 'real' victims.

Sending an innocent man - or child - to prison, or to be marked and ruined for life by a false accusation is not a secondary consideration to 'it might discourage a real victim'.

Victims of false accusation are REAL victims too.

Posted by: SgtMom | September 9, 2009 12:27 PM

I totally agree. Many who meet the definition of "sex offender" are in fact NOT predatory and upon release, will NOT pose significant risk to any community, yet we make it near impossible for them to find housing or jobs, brand them as pariahs, and waste huge resources tracking them for no real benefit to anyone.

And as SgtMom says, there are too many cases of false, confused, or mistaken accusations which ruin innocent adults' lives. This is the only type of crime where the mere word of one often unreliable witness, in the absence of ANY corroborating evidence, can send someone to jail and ruin their life. Emotions run up to hysterical levels and all logic and fairness goes out the window.

Posted by: Lila1 | September 9, 2009 2:58 PM

I totally agree. Many who meet the definition of "sex offender" are in fact NOT predatory and upon release, will NOT pose significant risk to any community, yet we make it near impossible for them to find housing or jobs, brand them as pariahs, and waste huge resources tracking them for no real benefit to anyone.

And as SgtMom says, there are too many cases of false, confused, or mistaken accusations which ruin innocent adults' lives. This is the only type of crime where the mere word of one often unreliable witness, in the absence of ANY corroborating evidence, can send someone to jail and ruin their life. Emotions run up to hysterical levels and all logic and fairness goes out the window.

Posted by: Lila1 | September 9, 2009 2:59 PM

I totally agree. Many who meet the definition of "sex offender" are in fact NOT predatory and upon release, will NOT pose significant risk to any community, yet we make it near impossible for them to find housing or jobs, brand them as pariahs, and waste huge resources tracking them for no real benefit to anyone.

And as SgtMom says, there are too many cases of false, confused, or mistaken accusations which ruin innocent adults' lives. This is the only type of crime where the mere word of one often unreliable witness, in the absence of ANY corroborating evidence, can send someone to jail and ruin their life. Emotions run up to hysterical levels and all logic and fairness goes out the window.

Posted by: Lila1 | September 9, 2009 3:00 PM

I totally agree. Many who meet the definition of "sex offender" are in fact NOT predatory and upon release, will NOT pose significant risk to any community, yet we make it near impossible for them to find housing or jobs, brand them as pariahs, and waste huge resources tracking them for no real benefit to anyone.

And as SgtMom says, there are too many cases of false, confused, or mistaken accusations which ruin innocent adults' lives. This is the only type of crime where the mere word of one often unreliable witness, in the absence of ANY corroborating evidence, can send someone to jail and ruin their life. Emotions run up to hysterical levels and all logic and fairness goes out the window.

Posted by: Lila1 | September 9, 2009 3:01 PM

The insane registry laws did not prevent this pervert, Philip Garrido, from doing what he did! The registry laws, and especially the residency / work place restrictions, have done far more harm than good. Forget about all the cases of vigilantism; forget about the fact that while these laws are proposed to protect the children, they include children, and a huge percentage of those on the list committed crimes that had nothing to do with children; forget about the fact that study after study has proven these laws not only are ineffective, but have actually made matters worse; forget about the fact that upon release from custody, registered sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates, not the highest. In fact those who receive counseling and treatment while in custody have outstanding records as opposed to those convicted of other violent crimes! The fact is the registry and the residency / work place restrictions should be limited only to those who are proven child molesters and pedophiles. This Law Enforcement can handle and monitor effectively. Do you seriously believe a committed pedophile cannot walk or drive 500, 1000, 2500, 5000 feet or more? Jaycee Lee Dugard was abducted miles away from where Philip Garrido lived!

I am sure we will see comments from some hysterical, uninformed individual(s) who will suggest that all those on the registry should be locked up for life or worse. They will say there is no rehabilitation for these people. And for a few they are right, which is why we need to focus on them! Once a person has done his or her time that should be it. That is the foundation of this great country and its legal system. If you don’t like it, move to China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, or wherever individual rights are ignored. If a person is a proven pedophile, lock them up for a very long time and provide treatment. If treatment is not working, keep them locked up. Too many families are being destroyed for political expediency. Too many children of those on the registry are being abused and ostracized at school. Too many families are being forced into isolation and restricted from the work place. If we are truly trying to protect the children with the registry, then let’s focus on the pedophiles and child molesters’. Get rid of the residency / work place restrictions and focus on the loitering laws. Let the rest of those on the registry re-assimilate into society after they have done their time and become solid, productive citizens; part of the solution not the problem. The facts, (and the Garrido case) as well as virtually all of the research, and study after study have proven what we are doing now, mostly for political expediency and to appease hysterical uninformed parents is not working and is in fact making matters worse!

Posted by: milljames7 | September 9, 2009 3:36 PM

I am totally confused--what does any of this have to do with books or publishing? Has the nature of this blog changed? I have been puzzled by previous posts that seem to be completely off-topic.

Posted by: NoMad3 | September 9, 2009 3:52 PM

Enough of politicians posturing as "tough on crime" try to top each other with ever-more-medieval laws. After a generation of elected officials playing this game, America now has SEVEN times the rate of imprisonment of any other Western democracy, and we have "sex offender " laws that would be considered ridiculous anywhere this side of Saudi Arabia.

Let's try some rational, evidence-based crime-prevention measures for a change, rather than base our public policy on 30-second sound-bites.

Posted by: DupontJay | September 9, 2009 4:01 PM

Nothing makes me want to jump through my TV screen more than to see some panty waisted do gooder defending the "rights" of sex offenders.

Here's my offer: drop all the registry baloney, all the hand wringing about the "stigma," etc. But in exchange, a serious sex offender (2nd offense for rape, child molestation of any kind) gets parole, and mandatory chemical castration for life.

Problem solved.

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | September 9, 2009 4:06 PM

From Washington Post Book World nonfiction editor, Steven Levingston, responding to NoMad3:

Our blog is evolving. We recognize that authors of some recently released books have much to say about the significant issues of the day. We hope to have their voices in the blog more often. Scholars and others who have spent years studying important issues can provide all of us with a distinct and illuminating perspective. That said, we are not neglecting other parts of the literary world: publishing news, exciting new fiction, and progress in digital publishing. Please feel free to provide us with any comments about our blog.

Posted by: levingstons | September 9, 2009 4:21 PM

"Yet, we know that registries contain far more individuals than can realistically be monitored, including many low-risk convicts."

Maybe legislators should notice the difference between sex *offenders* and sexual *predators*, and only include the latter in the registries?

Nah, then they wouldn't be "tough on crime" or some such.

Posted by: rt42 | September 9, 2009 4:23 PM

How many of our children and women must die or disappear before we stand up to protect them. It seems to be a problem that will not go away by ignoring . I call upon each and every citizen help.
We outnumber the bad in this country in all but the willingness to get involved. The low life’s count on us not getting together. They operate in the day light as well as in the dark without any apparent fear. They come in all sizes, ages, colors, all incomes, yet no one sees them. We look away and hope they don’t see us. We turn blind and deaf as they prey on our society. We no longer know who our neighbors by name. Fear fills our streets, schools, and public parks for both the young and the old.
I say it is the bad ones who should live in fear. Stand with each other and take back our country. Every person that helps another, helps themselves. Go out and greet your neighbors so a stranger stands out from the crowd. Watch out for all our loved ones so we are no longer prey, we are all stronger then the bad. No bully can face a crowd. No thief can steal what all eyes are on. No child can be harmed if we all listen and see. No woman can be harmed if people are there to render aide. No one old or young can suffer if we all stand together.

Posted by: SonnyRice | September 9, 2009 4:37 PM

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to comment on the change in the blog. While I think it valuable to hear from authors, there are many "current events" blogs on WashingtonPost.com for discussions such as this one; however, there are few, if any, outlets for a discussion of reading and books. This particular column and its comments have nothing to do with the world of books (I am not saying the author's post and subsequent comments are not informative, only that they have no real nexus to the alleged subject of this blog). If we are to hear from authors, I would like to hear about the writing process, the publishing world--how the decline of independent bookstores has limited the number of new books, where the technologies of Kindle and its ilk are taking the world of reading; and leave sensationalist stories like the one being discussed to other fora.

Posted by: NoMad3 | September 9, 2009 5:31 PM

Curmudgeon10:

Rather than jumping THROUGH your TV, you might be better served by turning it off and acquiring actual knowledge on the subject. Here's a good palce to start: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614

but actual research is even better.

Prisoner of all kinds, including sex offenders, do in fact have "rights." As the author of this blog has pointed out quite cogently, denying them their rights (eg, places to live, lifetime registries) has actually made us less safe.

Please god turn off the TV and read real research on the subject. Try Google scholar.

Posted by: vivzig | September 9, 2009 5:35 PM

Wait a second, claiming registries don't work because Dugard was able to slip through the cracks through a combination of police ineptitude and having an accomplice is like saying that because MS-13 continues to operate even after large gang busts prison sentences don't work. Police had more than 16 contacts with Garrido while he had Dugard, parole officers didn't violate him even when he was living in what looks like drug fueled squalor, and worse of all people ignored this degenerate rather than report him.

I worked in teen and after school programs for a few years and Sex Offender Registries are a godsend when you're hiring staff or getting a funny feeling about a parent that's volunteering a little too much. For women with children who are single public registries are a valuable resource and parent in general need to know who is watching their kids when they go to a movie with a friend.

As for this nonsense about how we put more people in prison than other western democracies, should we be giving rapists six month sentences like in England? Murders should get 5 year stretches? There was just a case in New Zealand (I think) where a young man got probation for molesting a child because the judge said it was "out of character" with his Muslim faith, yet the man was a known frequenter of pro-pedophile chatboards.

Putting "tough on crime" in quotes and sneering might make you feel good, but who are you protecting? If it wasn't for the registry Garrido would not have been caught. If the registry was used properly, if people in contact with him had searched his tent city knowing that he had a history of kidnapping Dugard would have been freed years earlier. But even if the registry didn't work in this one case how does that translate into the registry being to blame? Are the laws making it illegal for felons to purchase firearms suspect because many felons get their hands on firearms? Should we abandon that law because it "doesn't work"

Posted by: RedAlertsBlog | September 10, 2009 7:31 AM

I came to US as Jewish Refugee on Human rights violations
in former USSR.
I worked for Mitsubishi Electric Automation in Chicago
www.meau.com
I had my rights violated again in Minnesota and IL.
I was convicted for porn possession in 2003, misdemeanor
conviction and placed on sex offender register in Minnesota. Since
2003 as you may understand I can not find job, only short terms
projects.
Here you can find comparission of my situation as jew pariah in USSR
and predator pariah in US

http://estrinyefim.newsvine.com/_news/2008/07/15/1667739-a-comparission-between-soviet-jews-and-sex-offenders-in-us

Posted by: FimaFimovich | September 10, 2009 3:55 PM

Registry and sex offenders industry are a huge source of income for many people in US, like John Walsh
They may lose it soon, and they can not do anything useful for living.
Their comments here sound not good at all.
What they are offering: continue with current laws? Sex offender registry is growing 10% a year. Now we have 700,000 registered sex offenders, next year 770,000, after just 2 years from now 840.000 and so on. I do not count family members.
How government could monitor so many people? How many sex offenders we will have in 10 years? If Adam Walsh act will be passed soon, the number of sex offenders will increase much more then 10% a year. All sex offenders registrations will be for life, and 80% sex offenders will be reevaluated as level 3.
Many people, mostly politicians with tax payers subsidized salaries are working tireless to do more and more damage for this country.
I am really not proud to be an american.
Too much for me.
Sorry.

Fima

http://estrinyefim.newsvine.com

Posted by: FimaFimovich | September 10, 2009 4:23 PM

There's no such crime as porn possession. You were obviously collecting CHILD PORN which is not only illegally but morally reprehensible since it is the visual depiction of a child's exploitation and often their violent victimization.

What about the human rights of the children abused to feed your sick fantasy? Don;'t the children being forced to have sex with adults have a right to not have their victimization exploited for your sexual satisfaction?

Posted by: RedAlertsBlog | September 10, 2009 8:36 PM

Fima, I second what RedAlertsBlog said... there IS NO crime against porn possession in the US. There ARE laws against possession of child porn, and if you were arrested for porn possession, that's obviously what you were collecting. You deserve everything you got and then some. You absolutely should be on the registry for the rest of your life.

Also, if you're not proud to be an American, then feel free to leave. Don't let the gate hit you on the arse upon your exit. I, for one, don't care to have pedophiles living in this country.

Posted by: DodiaFae | September 10, 2009 9:32 PM

"Registry and sex offenders industry are a huge source of income for many people in US, like John Walsh They may lose it soon, and they can not do anything useful for living."

Actually, John Walsh and his family were pretty well off financially before his son was abducted and violently murdered.

I'm curious to know, Fima, what is it that you do that is so darn useful that you feel so confident that you can say that people like John Walsh can't do anything useful for a living?

Posted by: DodiaFae | September 10, 2009 10:51 PM

I agree with this article. All the attention given to registered sex offenders gives a distorted perception of the more likely perpetrators of sex crimes against children. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 93% of children who are victims of sexual abuse are victimized by family members or acquaintances. 94% of those arrested for the sexual molestation of children in New York State are first time offenders who are not listed on any registry. To put it another way, if a child has been the victim of sexual abuse, the odds are 4 in 1,000 that the child was victimized by a stranger who is a registered sex offender. The odds are far greater, 874 in 1,000, that the child was victimized by a family member or acquaintance who is not listed on the sex offender registry. The primary effect of sex offender registries is to give the public a false sense of security.

Posted by: cdavidhess | September 10, 2009 11:51 PM

This case proves that the Registry does nothing to prevent crime.

Posted by: smartius | September 11, 2009 9:39 AM

"Perversely, Garrido was thus a success."


Not really, He was living a lie that he was "successful". Big difference here and if his Parole Officer had actually done his job, Jaycee would of been rescued long ago!

Posted by: ROARfortruth | September 11, 2009 12:01 PM

So... you people obviously have no clue about how sex offenders become acquaintances (or, I suspect that at least some of you are actually on the SOR, and probably SOSENites, and therefore have an agenda unrelated to the protection of the actual victims of RSO's).

Just because they're not a stranger at the time of the assault does not mean that they didn't start out that way. They groom their victims and their families and become "acquaintances", being trusted with the child that they are targeting. The SOR serves the purpose of allowing parents and guardians of children to keep tabs on the kind of people that they allow into their children's lives.

Parents absolutely have a right to know if the "nice man" next door, who has the puppy that their child is crazy about and who has asked for help in caring for that puppy, has ever been convicted of a sex crime. It's the difference between being wary of a person and watching them closely and not allowing a person any contact with a child. On the one hand, the parent knows to pay attention to behaviors and be not allow "alone time" with a the person. On the other, the parent knows that the person is a definite risk to the safety of their child and simply won't take that risk.

And sure, the laws need to be reformed... but not made less strict. They need to be more strict, most of those on the SOR shouldn't have been let out in the first place. That is the problem with the growing number of offenders on the registry. If those who committed the most vile crimes, those who really were most likely to re-offend, were never allowed out of prison to begin with, the list would be much shorter.

Posted by: DodiaFae | September 11, 2009 12:18 PM

Dear DodiaFae
I found and read your web site

http://pagansagainstchildabuse.ning.com/

If you want my opinion: garbage, too many.
Russian people never use word 'Police'
They usually name it Garbage.
Also there are link to perverted justice web site. You are making a lot of money "protecting children". How many did you save. ( children or on savings )
So stay at home mom are feeling bored and found someting to do. Good luck

Posted by: FimaFimovich | September 11, 2009 2:48 PM

Registered sex offenders are responsible for 5% of all sex crimes, including failing to register. We can image that Politicians will pass just one short law to completely solve the problem: put all 700,000 in prison for life, or execute all 700,000. For any sex crime punishment would be life in prison.
Then we do not need registries.
Problem solved?
No. Sex crimes will be reduced by 5% only.
95% people committing sex crime never were in any trouble with laws.

Posted by: FimaFimovich | September 11, 2009 2:58 PM

Fima said:

"I had my rights violated again in Minnesota and IL.
I was convicted for porn possession in 2003, misdemeanor
conviction and placed on sex offender register in Minnesota."


WHAT about the rights of your victim(s)? You think child porn is a victimless crime? you think "your rights triumph the rights of the victims?

Your name here isn't listed at the Minn SO registry and I wonder if there is more your not telling us?

Posted by: ROARfortruth | September 11, 2009 9:16 PM

Fima, your opinion on my site means absolutely nothing to me. And what exactly makes you think I'm making a dime on that? You're delusional. I'm a volunteer, and my site makes no money whatever. I don't ask for donations, and I don't see any advertising revenue. It's not a non-profit. I'm a volunteer. I do this on my own free time, free of charge, because I care more about children and their rights than the perceived rights of the scumsacks who would victimize them.

I've saved a few children, that much I know, and that much makes it all worth it to me. I've helped shut down a number of child porn sites since I've started, and that makes it worth the time and effort I put into this.

I noticed, as ROARfortruth did, that you aren't listed on the MN SOR under the name you're posting under... I wonder if you're listed on Perverted Justice or Wikisposure anywhere. Might be worth looking into, since you seem to have such a sour taste in your mouth for them and must have some experience with their work.

My guess would be that you've still got CP on your computer somewhere, or stashed on some disks, or a memory stick... which is it?

BTW, I think you're absolutely vile for comparing the plight of Jews anywhere with the perceived plight of child rapists. It's disgusting when any of you people attempt to compare yourselves with any segment of the population that, for reasons they can't control (being born a Jew, black, whatever) have had their basic human rights violated. What you people do is by choice. You choose to exploit children. You then choose to try and play the pity card, but no one's buying it. You do the crime, you pay the consequences. Period. As far as I'm concerned, unless you're still in prison for what you did, you got off way too light.

Posted by: DodiaFae | September 12, 2009 12:07 AM

first of all I never had any child porn
second are you posted under your real name
Minnesota do not have public registry
only level 3 is posted.
Also this is impossible to talk to you
really

Posted by: FimaFimovich | September 13, 2009 1:49 AM

"first of all I never had any child porn"


Then what was your originally criminal act you were charged with?

I'd like to know.

Posted by: ROARfortruth | September 13, 2009 8:59 PM

Actually there was spyware browser hijacker on my company computer
with pop ups and redirected me to wrong web site. There were article
in Wired in 2004.

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2004/05/63391

Posted by: FimaFimovich | September 13, 2009 11:15 PM

Fima, it's considered "child porn" even if the subjects of the porn are teens under the age of legal consent. If you had nudie shots of a 15 year old, you had child porn.

If it wasn't child porn, as you claim, how old were the subjects of the porn? Or was it that you showed the porn to minors? Yeah, that'll get you on the SOR, too. Don't kid yourself into believing that you don't deserve it.

Posted by: DodiaFae | September 13, 2009 11:18 PM

OK, read the article...

Several of the URLs that CWS injects into Internet Explorer's favorites list also appear in the arrest warrant and other materials from Jack's hearing. CWS works as Jack described -- changing start pages, adding to favorites, popping up porn. But CWS was first spotted several months after Jack's arrest, so it seems unlikely that this particular hijacker is the cause of his problems.

Security experts who were asked to review Jack's claims said it is possible that a browser hijacker could have been the reason porn images were found on Jack's computer. But they also pointed out some discrepancies in the story.
Some of the images were found in unallocated file space, and would have to have been placed there deliberately since cached images from browsing sessions wouldn't have been stored in unallocated space.
Maybe you should have chosen a different article to prove your innocence, "Jack".

Posted by: DodiaFae | September 13, 2009 11:37 PM

Here is interesting article about child porn case of british Military Officer.
All charges were dropped after US porn star Melissa Bertsch from Los
Angeles testified that she was 20 years old in pictures of "child
porn". The more interesting thing is this military officer was cautch
under operation Ore.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/ireland/article527674.ece

I recently learned about child porn case of US man Kelly Hoose. Police
tryed to prosecute him because exactly the same pictures of this porn
star from California

http://telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061228/NEWS/612280745/1101

Porn star from California is 26 years old now but she still looks very young.

Bertsch has already given proof of her age in five American
prosecutions. "I once flew to Hawaii and testified in front of a jury
and a judge," she said. "They dropped all the charges after I
testified. In the other cases they dropped everything once I made a
statement and provided proof of my ID."

Posted by: FimaFimovich | September 14, 2009 10:28 AM

I advise all of you not to be stupid and think. What is going on in USA is a terrible hysteria. I exchanged E-mails with Patty Wetterling and talked with Nancy Sabine recently.

Posted by: FimaFimovich | September 14, 2009 10:38 AM

What they are offering: continue with current laws? Sex offender registry is growing 10% a year. Now we have 700,000 registered sex offenders, next year 770,000, after just 2 years from now 840.000 and so on. I do not count family members.
How government could monitor so many people? How many sex offenders we will have in 10 years?
Most people will be sex offenders in nearest future.

Posted by: FimaFimovich | September 14, 2009 10:46 AM

'Some of the images were found in unallocated file space, and would have to have been placed there deliberately since cached images from browsing sessions wouldn't have been stored in unallocated space.'

You understand nothing in computers.
Unallocated space mean deleted files.
Computer automatically save everything from browser, and when cashe owerflow, some files got automatically deleted, and go to Unallocated space.
50 millions americans have subscriptions to paid porn web sites, many of them with young looking 26 years old porn stars.
Our police and courts are very happy to increase prison population easy way.
There are huge lawyers mafia, prisons mafia
and sex offfenders industry mafia in USA

Posted by: FimaFimovich | September 14, 2009 11:01 AM

Well, while I'm not really buying the excuses given by those in the more recent instances you've listed, those instances have absolutely nothing to do with your case. Again, what was said in the Wired article you posted:

"But CWS was first spotted several months after Jack's arrest, so it seems unlikely that this particular hijacker is the cause of his problems.

Security experts who were asked to review Jack's claims said it is possible that a browser hijacker could have been the reason porn images were found on Jack's computer. But they also pointed out some discrepancies in the story.

Some of the images were found in unallocated file space, and would have to have been placed there deliberately since cached images from browsing sessions wouldn't have been stored in unallocated space."

I also spoke with a coder who has had much experience with these things. He explained (and I'll put this simply) that "spyware" does not place information on computer systems... spyware placed on systems to "spy", to collect data. Viruses are placed on systems to destroy information, not to place information on the system. It would be stupid to use a virus to store data on another person's computer, because it would be too difficult to access that data once it was there.

He also said that if a company network was "taken over" or in any way hijacked by spyware, there would be a record of it, and other people in the company would be affected. LE would not just pick one person out and target him if this was the case. What is far, far more likely is that the spyware infection *did* happen, but the stuff in your computer was discovered while the infection was being handled. Would it really infect a whole network and just pick one computer to store content on? I don't think so.

So, while I don't understand everything about computers, I have managed a few company servers in my time, and what I don't understand is very clearly explained to me by someone who not only has a very clear understanding of such things, but he does it for a living and a hobby.

BTW, throwing names around means nothing... Have you also been in contact with Mary Duval recently? Taken any of her brilliant advice lately? I'm fairly certain that any true child safety advocate wouldn't give you the time of day if they had a clear understanding of what you're claims are with regard to child porn (CP) being on your computer, and how unlikely your claims are. Also, you said before that you didn't have CP... that was obviously a lie. It was on your computer, therefore you had CP, that is what you were arrested for.

Posted by: DodiaFae | September 14, 2009 12:45 PM

I'm pretty sure Mary would welcome him in because she once said that child porn was a "victimless" crime!

Posted by: ROARfortruth | September 14, 2009 2:07 PM

"Then what was your original criminal act you were charged with?"

Still waiting for an answer!

Posted by: ROARfortruth | September 14, 2009 2:09 PM

Posted by: ROARfortruth | September 14, 2009 7:42 PM

There is no substantive evidence that public SOR work. Fact. There is, however, evidence that through their onerous compliance requirements they endanger children by forcing those on the registries underground. Obviously it's important for those involved with law enforcement to have access to lists of offenders (sexual or otherwise) to enable them to do their jobs and keep tabs on criminals. What is not needed is for these registers to be made public as part of what is nothing more than a hollow public relations exercise. Anyone who tells you differently is pushing their own agenda - usually one that involves making money.

FimaFimovich - I've also checked out DodiaFae's Pagan website and agree it's a load of garbage. She may not care for our opinion but that's fine as I don't care for her $$$ driven agenda either. I also note that Mr 'Reds Under The Bed' RedAlertsBlog is also a key member of the Pagan blog. How telling then that they both come here to push their bandwagon.

Posted by: ExposerOfTruth | September 15, 2009 3:51 AM

I'd like to point out that my network is hosted by Ning.com (as you can see from the link posted by "Jack"), and is a free account. The Google ads placed in the right bar of each page are to generate income for Ning. I could remove the ads from the site by paying Ning to upgrade my account, but I choose not to. I'm not currently interested in making PACA into a non-profit organization.

If you believe you have some actual proof that I'm making any money off that site, please feel free to post it. You can check out the site, and nowhere do I ask anyone for money. I don't even give donation options anywhere.

What a ridiculous tact to use to discredit someone. It's laughable. All you do is make yourself look foolish.

Posted by: DodiaFae | September 15, 2009 1:26 PM

"What they are offering: continue with current laws? Sex offender registry is growing 10% a year. Now we have 700,000 registered sex offenders, next year 770,000, after just 2 years from now 840.000 and so on. I do not count family members.
How government could monitor so many people? How many sex offenders we will have in 10 years?
Most people will be sex offenders in nearest future."

This is silly. You're acting as if people put on the registry did nothing. I won't end up on it, because I'm not a pervert. Dodia won't end up on it, because she's not a pervert. People who masturbate to the evidence of crimes (child porn) and who sexually exploit children will. So what?

We have a database of felons that gunstores check to ensure you're allowed to own a firearm. Are you against that too? There's a database of suspended licenses that keeps people from getting a license. I suppose this too is fascism.

You sex offenders act as if you have no personal responsibility for where your lives went. You try to distract from your personal actions by claiming the world is wrong, not you. When evaluating a sex offender, don't doctors see that as something which increases the likelihood to re offend?

I'm not shocked that on the WAPO site there are perverts and people claiming DodiaFae and I are the bad guys. No matter that we don't rape children, collect child porn or break laws. But I guarantee Logan and Levingston that RoarforTruth and Fima will be in jail again within ten years. And the kind hearted "liberals" like yourself will still be claiming their victims.

When will you write books about the children they themselves victimized?

Posted by: RedAlertsBlog | September 15, 2009 2:37 PM

So, I'm just curious how it is that commentators are welcome to post blatant lies about me and my motivations for running PACA, while my post, which contains truths as posted by Fima "Jack" Fimovich himself in his comments here and links he's posted was not allowed to post? Twice?

Mr. Livingston, you're clearly moderating comments here. Care to explain?

Posted by: DodiaFae | September 15, 2009 3:38 PM

"But I guarantee Logan and Levingston that RoarforTruth and Fima will be in jail again within ten years. And the kind hearted "liberals" like yourself will still be claiming their victims."


Pure garbage based on nothing but one's stupid opinion!

Posted by: ROARfortruth | September 15, 2009 9:18 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company