The zairbzzebz
whole point of the public sex offender registry is ostensibly to keep children safe. Read this story, which I wrote for Reason.com, with that in mind:
In Florida, a wheelchair-bound man with end-stage Alzheimer’s must move out of the hospice where he’s dying, because he is a registered sex offender and the hospice is too close to a preschool.
Phew! That will certainly make the kids a lot safer.
Not that he was ever a threat to kids anyway. The dying man, Jack Ehrhart, was convicted of a sex offense about 30 years ago, when he was a doctor. Several patients accused him of touching them sexually during their gynecological exams, with a nurse present. He now faces arrest unless he gets himself out of the Heartland Hospice. As Izzy Kapnick reports in the Courthouse News Service:
The City of Boynton Beach purportedly issued a notice to Ehrhart and the hospice accusing them of violating an ordinance that prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school, daycare center or playground.“Heartland claims to be incurring fines imposed by the city due to plaintiff’s status and has threatened to have Boynton Beach Police arrest [him] for a violation of the ordinance,” according to the emergency petition, filed by Ehrhart’s wife under a power of attorney.Ehrhart’s wife is arguing that the residency restrictions apply only to people who have deliberately chosen to live where they live. But her husband’s condition means he not only had no say in where he’s living, he has no idea where he is now.
Still, Heartland is trying to ship him out, but having a hard time, because it can’t find other hospices that will take him.
Meanwhile, Ehrhart’s attorney is trying to get him off the sex offender registry, arguing that Florida allows some former offenders to be removed from the list after being on it 25 years.
If the court does not grant an emergency injunction, according to CNS “Ehrhart is in imminent danger of being arrested and placed in a detention center with inadequate hospice care.”
This is how we treat people on the sex offender registry. They are considered a horrible threat to children even when drooling in a wheelchair. If Ehrhart had been convicted of manslaughter, or heroin manufacturing, or massive fraud and had served his time, he would not be on a registry 30 years later. He would be allowed to die in peace.
Now all that stands between him and a jail cell is a hearing, as soon as possible. But as Kapnick reports, the court has ruled that “this matter is not [an] emergency and shall be heard in the ordinary course.”
It’s an emergency for Ehrhart, but the court doesn’t seem to view him as a human being.
I’d add that what they do see him as is a threat to children. How does that jive with reality? Free-Range Kids wants safe kids, not kids used as an excuse for endless, pointless punishment. – L
.
.
31 Comments
When he dies, can he be buried within 2500 feet of a school?
You can’t be too careful, you know …
The sex offender registry was not originally intended for public use. It was put together as an investigative tool to aid law enforcement. Much like the DNA and fingerprint databases are used now.
It’s horrible how we treat those who have been arrested and convicted of crimes. We put a ton of restrictions on them after there release and then we wonder why they aren’t becoming productive members of society and we lament the recidivism rates.
This is but one of many examples of the ludicrous consequences of a public registry that has grown to gargantuan proportions and exists only to serve itself and those who benefit financially and politically. It does not provide public safety. It does not increase safety measures for children or other potential victims. It does not, by any stretch of the imagination, work toward prevention. In addition to this being borne out in research, it is obvious by this fact: legitimate agencies focused on reduction of child sexual abuse do not mention checking the public registries as a prevention strategy. Look at the websites for the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center, for Erin’s Kids, for the Moore Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse, and for the National Coalition to Prevent Child Sexual Abuse & Exploitation, to name a few.
We don’t have registries for murderers, even if they murdered children. We don’t have registries for people who sold or administered illegal drugs to children. We don’t have registries for people who habitually abused children physically or psychologically. As long as the above didn’t have sex with a child, once they are out of jail, they can walk the streets, live near schools, and be around children. The registry is BS.
@BL — Imagine the uproar if some concerned citizen should find out that a sex offender is resting comfortably too close to a school.
@ML, I don’t have to imagine. My husband has to be out of our home by tomorrow, because we found out AFTER WE HAD MOVED in, that there is (supposedly) a daycare 862 feet from our new home. He will be living in a tent in the woods until we can do something else. We are on a fixed income and CANNOT afford to move again. He has severe respiratory issues and has used oxygen at night (and now also in the day time), and also has Marfan Syndrome which also affects the tissues in his lungs, plus all of the connective tissue in his body. He has been hospitalized twice in the last few months, once for pnuemonia and once for a Marfan related blood clot. I told the Sheriff’s department they were handing him a death sentence and they KNOW we can’t afford a place for him to stay, we file as indigent with them every year because we can’t afford the registry fees in South Carolina because our income is so low. And BTW, his accusation was almost 30 years ago and he has NEVER bothered anyone, especially a child!
Kafka is laughing his head off. No fly lists… sex offender lists… on what other lists might we end up?
Either someone has committed a crime and you think they are a danger to society and you keep them in jail, or you allow them to do their time, let them go and leave them alone.
Where they live really doesn’t matter, if they want to do evil again, their home address is not the key.
Hate, fear and anger control people’s lives.
Just look at the role lies, hoaxes and fake news played in national politics recently.
A fake news blurb in a Supreme Court Case regarding a pop culture article in Psychology Today was quoted by the Attorney General Roberts decades ago and has resulted in consequences like this miscarriage of justice in Florida. Search “Frightening and High” for the truth. Fact check everything.
Hype, spin and mind control have no place in a just society.
So much of injustice toward people on the registry is based on outrageous lies. Sooner or later the Supreme Court will correct the error. The legacies of Justices Roberts and Kennedy will otherwise be toast for their citing a magazine article as if it had validity and reliability, rather than the opinion of one poorly trained psychologist.
Nice idea with the med list for bad folk but then we have to put cps and doctors on when they play guinea pig with the kids. I wish that list didn’t have to have horny teens. Or the guy who didn’t card his date only to find afterwards not an adult. Yes those who manipulate anyone into sex specialy those who sell others don’t desever much mercy .those who force themselves on anyone in any way shape or form should get the same they gave.!
And it masks real danger. Todd Kohlhepp was our property manager.
We looked him up as normal due diligence and found him on the registry, but without details didn’t worry about it too much because the majority of the time they aren’t a danger. Since he was 15 at the time, we assumed consensual with a slightly younger girl.
Whoops?
“The whole point of the public sex offender registry is ostensibly to keep children safe.”
It’s not specific to children. It’s to keep everyone safe. For example, if you have a doctor who is convicted of touching patients inappropriately during gynecological exams, this information might be useful to women considering where to go for gynecological treatment.
The question is, why do we (collectively) think that keeping, say, a doctor who is convicted of inappropriately touching (presumably adult) patients inappropriately needs to be kept from living near a preschool? It’s more-or-less reasonable to put such a requirement on people convicted of multiple counts of sexual assaults on children, although even that has holes in it, since we insist on labelling some fully-sexually-mature individuals as “children”. Part of the stupidity comes from the notion that just being aware of sex is somehow harmful to children, such that merely witnessing nudity scars children for life. If you buy into that one, we have to keep the exhibitionists away from the children, as well.
Many people who are convicted of crimes have some kind of court-ordered post-prison supervision (parole or probation) which allows the government to limit the options of the convict. A parolee might be prevented from being in a bar or possessing alcohol, for example, or prohibited from associating with former colleagues who do not tread the straight-and-narrow. This isn’t a violation of rights because a parolee isn’t a free person whose freedom is being limited… a parolee is a prisoner who is being permitted to live outside the prison.
Parole and probation are not indefinite, unless the person is on a life sentence, however. So there is a difference between a lifetime of being “under the ban” for something that carries a sentence of less than life, and being on the terms of parole until the sentence has run its full course.
Some contend that with the overgrowth of invasive laws, the average person commits three felonies a day. Since the object is safety, it’s clear that everyone who commits a crime should be on a List.
[a week later]
The list is now longer than the universe is wide. What shall we do with all these people who are not allowed to live near one another??
For GOD sakes, the man is dying. Can’t anybody leave him alone? Yes, according to the story,he was a doctor 30 years ago and yes, he did make some bad mistakes. Why does he still have to be punished now? According to his condition, being severe as it is, he still needs the care and being in a safe place. Threatening to kick him out and not being able to go to another hospice because they will reject him, how in the world can he survive for the little time he has left? These registries are quite unfair and do more hqrm than good..Definitely should be rewritten.
@BL
LOL…BL, that is the quote of the year! I certainly hope a Judge with common sense will throw this out.
So he touched women inappropriately during gynecological exams, and that suddenly makes him a danger to children? Let’s make the law fit the crime and limit this restriction to sex offenders whose victims were actually children, shall we? This makes no sense whatsoever.
@James Pollock
” if you have a doctor who is convicted of touching patients inappropriately during gynecological exams, this information might be useful to women considering where to go for gynecological treatment.”
Gynecologists convicted of inappropriately touching their patients get to keep their medical licenses?
Surprising,if true.
It was never about safety, folks. It was about politicians looking like they were “fixing” a problem.
Oh, and giving the public a group they could freely ostracize and deny any civil rights whatsoever, and still be socially acceptable. Had to replace the spot traditionally held by non-whites in the caste system, don’t you know?
This is where our registry laws here in the UK are many times better than the USA
Here the registry is not available to the general public at all and there are no restrictions as to where you can live unless the judge places additional restrictions as part of the sentence or the probation service does the same as part of somone being granted parole from prison
In this situation the ex offender would have no more restrictions than to register their address with the local police station and they would be banned from working in a number of jobs.
Conditions of parole and probation are much less onerous than the requirements of the sex offender registry. And much less enforced at their most onerous level (eg I’ve never had a probationer violated for eating Thanksgiving with their nieces and nephews who are convicted felons, but I have had sex offenders violated for eating Thanksgiving with their nieces and nephews who are minors). And are enforceable only by violating the parole/probation that already exists and not by instigating an entirely new felony criminal prosecution (with the limited exception of stay away orders which can result in additional criminal charges if violated).
Further, for the most part, conditions of probation are narrowly tailored to the crime committed. You are not going to get overarching prohibitions that have nothing to do with the specific facts of your particular case. You may be prohibited from being around your ex-wife, who was the victim of your crime, but you are not going to be prohibited from being around all females. Your probation for shoplifting may limit your ability to shop at the Walmart that you stole the TV from temporarily, but will not impact your ability to go to a different Walmart or Target. You may be barred from the property of the house that you robbed, but you can be in any other house that exists. You are not going to be barred from being in all stores after being convicted of robbing a house.
And conditions of probation are not statutory and are, therefore, negotiable as part of plea negotiations. There are some that are standard and the DA will not negotiate (no illegal drugs for example), but parameters of stay aways and the like get negotiated all the time.
Several years ago I accompanied some Sisters from the Catholic school I was associated with on a trip to visit some men who were dying in the local charity hospital. These men were not able to receive adiquate treatment for their terminal illnesses in prison and were transferred to this hospital to spend their final days. These men had all been sentenced to life for murder.
The sisters filled their rooms with flowers and cards, played music, kept the mood light, read books, newspapers and words of spiritual encouragement to them, worked diligently to contact family members or friends so that amends could be made and attempted to provide comfort for body and mind.
A Sister explained to me that moments of our death from this life are just as precious as the moments of our birth into it. Looking at these frail, helpless men facing such a profound transformation from body into spirit I was struck by the similarity between their state and that of a new born baby.
If we truly want a more peaceful, loving world we must value compassion over vengeance, we must model the goodness we want to see thrive and resist the callousness we claim to revile. There is a point at which punishment must end and redemption must be offered. As long as someone is drawing breath they hold the potential for doing something right and loving and valuable.
We are quickly becoming a society that is more ruthless, unforgiving and cruel than the monsters we want to punish.
Archimedes Screw, I doubt he was a danger anyway, unless someone was going to take her clothing off and request that he examine her private parts — then he could be expected to do inappropriate things. Someone committing a crime of opportunity like that is not much more likely than the average person to inflict himself on someone by violence. Now if he had a history that went beyond that, that would be something different.
I worked in hospice and ran into this with a patient who was a registered sex offender. He was probably younger than this guy but could barely walk, much less assault anyone. The nursing homes wouldn’t take him because of his status, not because they were near schools or anything – just wouldn’t take him because of the status. My explaining that he could not get out of bed without assistance to hurt a fly fell upon deaf ears. He ended up dying in the hospital – not only less humane, but also cost taxpayers a lot of unnecessary money.
“Conditions of parole and probation are much less onerous than the requirements of the sex offender registry.”
Except that the actual requirements of the sex offender registry vary widely from state to state. It’s apples and oranges, in any case… both level restrictions, but they’re different and which is worse depends on which things bother you more when you aren’t allowed to do them.
“are enforceable only by violating the parole/probation that already exists and not by instigating an entirely new felony criminal prosecution”
Now, besides the fact that this is worse, not better (the authorities in power can skip straight to putting you back in prison), it’s not true. A parolee who violates parole by being found in possession of controlled substances is just as subject to possession charges as anyone else, and conveniently doesn’t have any fourth amendment defenses because a condition to parole is voluntarily accepting warrantless searches.
“Further, for the most part, conditions of probation are narrowly tailored to the crime committed. You are not going to get overarching prohibitions that have nothing to do with the specific facts of your particular case.”
This also is not true. Parolees routinely get prohibitions on associating with other known felons and prohibitions on consuming alcohol, even when their crimes had nothing to do with said felons or alcohol. I happen to think both of these restrictions are sensible and appropriate, but they’re not in any way “narrowly tailored”.
Another difference is that registered sex offenders can be told where they can’t live, but parolees can be told exactly where they have to live. Spent the night at your girlfriend’s house? That’s a violation, if the P.O. wants to make it one.
The biggest difference between sex offender registry and post-prison supervision is that nearly all cases of post-prison supervision end before the criminal’s life does… the state releases you, and checks up on you for a while, but at some point, either they’ve got you doing something you shouldn’t have, and sent you back to prison, or they haven’t, and the supervision ends. This can be seen as the state determining that, at that point, the parolee/probationer is no longer a danger to society and may enjoy once again the full freedoms of citizenship (except, of course, for those states still clinging to civil death penalty for felons and the spiritual successors… which is another issue.)
“they’re different and which is worse depends on which things bother you more when you aren’t allowed to do them.”
Spoken like someone who has never been on probation/parole or a registered sex offender. Or spent any time talking to anyone on probation/parole or registered sex offender. It is no comparison.
“(the authorities in power can skip straight to putting you back in prison), ”
No, you are entitled to a hearing before they can put you back in prison. And there are sanctions for violating that are less than going back to prison. In fact, unless you really screw up, you are not going to be sent back to prison. For people on regular parole (as opposed to high-intensity parole), parole is a breeze; probation is hard. I have clients beg me for more time in prison because they know that they can do parole, but suck at probation.
“A parolee who violates parole by being found in possession of controlled substances is just as subject to possession charges as anyone else”
Yes, a parolee is still subject to the criminal laws just like everyone else on the planet. Shocking. This is also completely irrelevant and not at all what we were talking about. Where they have to live, who they can see and what they can drink are not actually defined in criminal statutes. They are simply conditions of parole. Violating conditions of parole are not separate crimes. You may (and it is a realistically almost non-existent in the real world may) get the rest of your sentence revoked if you change addresses without notifying your parole officer, but you can’t get an additional 10 years like you can if you are a sex offender.
“conveniently doesn’t have any fourth amendment defenses because a condition to parole is voluntarily accepting warrantless searches.”
Not true. Your 4th amendment rights are limited while on parole, but not eradicated. And probationers have full 4th amendment rights unless they voluntarily waived them as part of their sentence.
“Parolees routinely get prohibitions on associating with other known felons and prohibitions on consuming alcohol,”
Possibly. I have also never in more than 10 years had a parolee violated for associating with other known felons. In fact, they almost always associate with known felons on a regular basis since the vast majority couldn’t associate with any of their family unless they did.
“Another difference is that registered sex offenders can be told where they can’t live, but parolees can be told exactly where they have to live. Spent the night at your girlfriend’s house? That’s a violation,”
You are conflating high intensity parole with every parole and probation. Yes, a very small handful of people – often sex offenders – have very strict paroles. The extreme vast majority of people on parole are simply turned out of prison and told to report to a parole officer once a month. Nobody pays much attention to them otherwise unless there is some reason to believe that they need to. They do have to provide their parole officer with an address, but that address can be anywhere within the state (although it may take doing something to transfer parole to another county before you can move), can change as often as they want it to change (as long as they keep parole informed) and doesn’t need to be where they sleep every night. I do have some paroles and probationers who run afoul of this condition of release, but that is because “place of residence” is defined differently by my clients than parole. My clients define “place of residence” as “where they get their mail or the address they put on a job application” and parole defines it as “where they actually sleep most of the time.” These two addresses are often not the same. Spending a night with your girlfriend? Not a problem. Spending every night with your girlfriend while still telling parole that you live with your parents? A problem.
Well put, Flossy.
This doesn’t even make sense. He poses absolutely no danger to anyone at all. How do people realistically expect him to do anything to the children? He can’t.
“Spoken like someone who has never been on probation/parole or a registered sex offender. Or spent any time talking to anyone on probation/parole or registered sex offender. It is no comparison. ”
Say i with me, Donna. “The specific details of both restrictions on sex offender registry registrants (if any restrictions are imposed) and restrictions and parolees and probationers can and do vary widely from state to state.”
Generalizing your extensive experience with Georgia’s choices on these matters to all the other states is a serious error, one which you’d no doubt be quick to admit if you weren’t arguing the point with me, specifically.
For example, you say “Conditions of parole and probation are much less onerous than the requirements of the sex offender registry.”
This may be true in Georgia (as you say, I’ve not had any conversations at all, that I know of, with anyone subject to either parole, probation, or sex offender registration IN GEORGIA. However, it turns out that many people do not currently live IN GEORGIA, and thus are NOT subject to GEORGIA’s choice of conditions to impose on its convicts.
If you care, the most relevant statutes that cover MY state’s post-prison supervision can be found at ORS 144.102 to 144.109, and, for some reason, repeated in ORS 144.270.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation”
How the heck did that get there??
@James Pollack – go back to the rock you crawled out from under in Oregon where the moss, mold and mildew live and knock it off. You have strayed so far off topic, you are off the Oregon coast past Haystack Rock trying to swim with logic, but sink with ignorance instead. Do us all a favor, wrap your mind around how Oregon is trying to put a 3 tiered RSO system into place that will impact many Oregonians before coming back here. Quit trying to play lawyer…
Bottom line – The medical ethics of this situation for this individual in a medical facility need to be examined so he can stay and finish out his life where those who are medically bound to do so can do their jobs. The judge has denied a rapid processing of this man’s court case and it will be heard in normal due course of the court, whenever that is (hopefully before he passes).
Additionally, for LL, your story is reaching others…..keep pressing so it goes far and wide….
“@James Pollack — go back…”
I am honored by the time and effort you’ve clearly put into making your insults so poetic, although your metaphors still need work.
(As an aside, if you’re going to accuse someone else of ignorance, you might want to make sure you get details right, such as spelling their name correctly, or noticing that a state already has a 3-level classification system when you say they’re trying to implement one. (Here’s a hint: federal law requires states to have 3-tiered systems, and has since President Bush signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.))