Comments:

1. Sohailkhatri on 12/26/2019:

   One of such solutions is this text topical talks entitled "Modern Trends in Sports Administration and Management".

2. league boost on 12/23/2019:

   You can learn how to check your lol mmr to see what your matchmaking ratin is

3. stephets on 12/14/2018:

   This is beyond ridiculous. Playing Call of Duty in your own home is not "grooming" in any way whatsoever. This hysteria has got to be reined in.

4. Hoamuoigio on 11/28/2018:

   If there are many sad stories, share it with the people you trust. Sharing helps people get closer together and you also relieve some of that sadness. run 3 unblocked 66

5. Hinevis1938 on 08/27/2018:

   Alcohol extraction involves soaking the hemp plant in a solvent such as ethanol. The solvent leeches out the CBD and other cannabinoids from the plant. what is cbd

6. computerpo on 03/03/2011:

   Half-witted? I am at least 3/4 witted I hope!. There is a world of difference between someone on the registry alone and someone being supervised. Someone on the registry has to report in person... and I am going by the Adam Walsh standard.... once every 90 days for life (Tier III); once every 180 days for 25 years (Tier II); and once ever year for 15 years (Tier I). Sure you have a address verification but does not compare to supervision. (yes and some have community notification...but that is not supervision).Someone on supervision has to report or be seen much more ..in the field, in their home, at their employer. They can’t travel outside the jurisdiction without permission. They are subject random urine screening...searches based upon reasonable suspicion...association restrictions...the list goes on and on. And again you are restating something that just skews the reality.... ie... “sex offenders as a whole have a low rate of recidivism." Depending upon the study you have rates going from 13% to 46%... depending on sex offender...whether it is a new sex crime or a new non-sex offense. Which part of the whole are you talking about... the 54% or 87% the who stay out of trouble? Yes and offender who breaks supervision rules do get sent back to prison.. You see those rules are just that RULES...they are not suggestions. Folks don't follow them get in trouble. If you don't register you get in trouble. Don't break the law or your supervision rules and life will be so much easier for you. Even a half-wit like me can understand that. A former military man like yourself understands the concept of rules right? And it is interesting you bring up someone violating the sex offender registry getting lifetime supervised release upon release from custody. You act like they are first time offenders... The simple facts is they committed another crime...after their first sex offense...or maybe their second or third. Maybe just maybe during the "due process" that occurs during the sentencing the Court concluded based upon the evidence...that the guy desired to be watched for life. You can't just say...wow and injustice has occurred without knowing what the facts were that were presented. By the way, wow are is it really to just register? Does it take a special skill or something? Even a half-wit like me can show up some place periodically and update my information. You, JohnDoeUtah, are registering. Why? Because if you don't you know you will get in trouble. Sure you are contesting part of it, through a legal process. But you are not ignoring the law because you know if you do you get in trouble. Life is full of choices. Some of us half-witted folks know to follow the rules and don't get in trouble. The rest apparently have to learn the hard way. Now really JohnDoeUtah isn't it time you got your own blog? I mean even a half-wit like me can see it is time for you to move on.

7. JohnDoeUtah on 03/03/2011:

   Art, the issues are one in the same. The registry is nothing more than legislatively imposed supervision. Many of the restrictions you talk about here, are directly attributable to the registry. In some states offenders cannot have social networking accounts, by law, as one of your articles talks about. In some states, that includes gaming devises, because the legal definaition of a social networking site includes things such as XBox live. The only difference is between a registered sex offender under court supervision and one not under court supervision, is that the court supervised one would have probation revoked as well as face new criminal charges, while the non-court-supervised registrant would only face new criminal charges. And yes Art, sex offenders as a whole have a low rate of sexual recividism. Most end up going back to jail, 40%-50%, due to technical violations of thier supervision, which is most often a violation of the registry. A registry violation is a crime, which triggers having probation revoked. So, that does nothing to change the fact that you proliferate that sexual offenders have a high rate of sexual recividism; which is what our "legislatively imposed supervision" is all about. Trust me, before Utah changed thier laws I had to make registry updates with adult probation and parole officers, eventhough I've never been under court supervision; and, nine times out of ten they'd treat me like one of thier cases and try to cause shit or ask to many questions. And, thanks for bringin up the point about offenders being re-incarcerated (in some half-whitted attempt to justify yourself), we all know these laws are only designed to put us back in jail (just like a probation violation would) and then have a chance to put us under some type of supervision again. Like the guys getting covicted of Federal Failure-to-register getting a year in jail followed by LIFETIME supervision!

8. computerpo on 03/03/2011:

   JohnDoeUtah you are again misquoting things. This is not a study about looking at “reconvictions” of sexual offenders as you allege. I took a look at the link you provided and the thumbnail of the study. It examined SEX OFFENSE ARREST RATES before and after the passage of the New York registration. They looked only at individuals arrested for sex crimes to see if they were registered sex offenders. This comparison of before and after and the number of sex crimes committed by first time sex offenders is what they are basing their study on. That is not the same as looking at the recidivism rates of individuals on the sex offender registration. How many registered sex offenders are arrested again? How many are arrested for violent offenses, such as murder, which aren’t classified as sex offenses? How many get sent back to prison and therefore aren’t in the community to commit a new sex crime? If they aren’t being rearrested for any crime...is it because they are on the registry? Also, this study is only looking at arrests. But if I am not mistaken, sex offenses are one of those crimes that are under reported. The study is intriguing but it doesn’t resolve the issue. See: http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html “Persons who commit sex offenses are not a homogeneous group, but instead fall into several different categories.” Briefly, some have low recidivism rates and some are quite high. You appear to be guilty of what you are claiming I am doing just in the opposite direction...ie.. “Claiming all sex offenders are alike and have low recidivism rates” vs. “Claiming all sex offenders are alike and have high recidivism rates” (which you think I believe but I don’t in reality). Additionally, “not all sex crimes are solved or result in arrest and only a fraction of sex offenses are reported to police.” This study only looked at arrests... so it looks at the tip of the iceberg. Again, JohnDoeUtah, you have managed to insert sex offender registration issues into a piece that had very little to do with sex offender registration. The piece is about supervising sex offenders...on probation/parole, etc. NOT SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION. Per Center for Sex Offender Management: http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html “While sex offenders constitute a large and increasing population of prison inmates, most are eventually released to the community. Some 60% of those 265,000 convicted sex offenders noted above were supervised in the community, whether directly following sentencing or after a term of incarceration in jail or prison. Short of incarceration, supervision allows the criminal justice system the best means to maintain control over offenders, monitor their residence, and require them to work and participate in treatment. As a result, there is a growing interest in providing community supervision for this population as an effective means of reducing the threat of future victimization.” So JohnDoeUtah please take a look again at the purpose of this blog. It is not to debate sex offender registration law. I know it a big issue with you and other sex offenders. Might I suggest that you get you own blog and debate it there as opposed to every time you see the word “sex offender” you latch on. It is a complicated issue and really deserves to be treated as such... as opposed to interjecting it into areas it really doesn’t revolve around. You are doing a disservice to the debate. If and when you decide to start up your own blog to focus on the issue let us know will you? I will see that it gets a tweated or something. Until than we will just have to look forward to your peanut gallery chatter on every news article that mentions “sex offender”that has a comment section. Raise the bar my reader ... be a leader in the debate as opposed to a follower. Okay cigar smoking time!

9. JohnDoeUtah on 03/03/2011:

   Art, yes, the study looks at reconvictions of sexual offenders. If you had taken time to look at the link I provided you'd see the FIRST finding of the study was that, "Results provide no support for the effectiveness of registration and community notification laws in reducing sexual offending by: (a) rapists, (b) child molesters, (c) sexual recidivists, or (d) first-time sex offenders." The Second finding was that, "Analyses also showed that over 95% of all sexual offense arrests were committed by first-time sex offenders, casting doubt on the ability of laws that target repeat offenders to meaningfully reduce sexual offending." So, ofcourse they looked at the recividsm rate prior too, and after, laws regulating sexual offenders took place. But, most notably, registered sex offenders only accounted for 5% of all new sex crimes. Do the Math Art! It's not those who are registered that are out raping and molesting people over and over again, as you and your brood advocate. It's everyone one else, who's not on the registry committing the huge majority of new sex crimes; which points directly to the second finding of the study. I'd imagine that someone with "25 years in corrections...and a Masters in Corrections" would know of these types of studies, and that they go against the principles that you continue to advocate: Further restricting convicted offenders, which accounts for 5%, instead of putting resources into education and prevention for the whole. I love our talks Art, I understand it is hard to have a completely open mind about these new studies that debunk almost everything persons such as yourself have advocated for for the last 25-years; but, do you really think any of this is working? And, yes, I have vast amounts of experience regarding this subject, I'm the living proof of the other side of the argument - I live day-in and day-out with the useless and punitive restrictions persons with the mindset as yourself have forced upon me beyond, after I completed my debt to society. You guys come up with the shit, these hoops we must jump through day-in and day-out, but hey don't knock it, Art, until you've tried it yourself - then maybe youll have some real sense of enlightenment of the issue.

10. computerpo on 03/03/2011:

    You know...there is something about that study that JohnDoeUtah mentioned. that has made me curious.... That study looked at just sex crimes before and after NY sex offender reg. Did it look at how many of the sex offenders on the reg were convicted of new crimes? Also what if the sex offender on the reg got convicted say murder...how was the accounted for? For instance, Anthony Sowell,http://abcnews.go.com/WN/anthony-sowell-murder-case-highlights-broken-sex-offender/story?id=8999276 the accussed serial killer in Cleveland was a registered sex offender... He is now charged with numerous counts of murder...a non-sex crime. I know he doesn't live in NY...but how would the study account for these type crimes...which appear to have a sexual motivation...if they were only looking a charged sex crimes. Interesting...

11. computerpo on 03/03/2011:

    JohnDoeUtah? Is that really you? I thought you left us. Welcome back! So to be clear, where does your vast correctional supervision experience come from? Education... maybe... I don’t think you have shared that yet. Experience... nope can’t be that as I recall you were sentenced to 18 months custody by the military and released after 13 months, without being placed on probation or supervised release. Right? Unless, maybe you worked as a po prior to your conviction. So it seems you experience is from the offender perspective on this..okay fair enough. I agreed that we can’t have a one-size-fits all approach. That won’t stand up in the courts. The phrase least restrictive comes to mind...but the other part of that....that fits the needs of the case (based upon the offense, the offender’ history). ..But the technology issues are coming out too every now and again. What is the least restrictive, technically feasible way to manage the risk? More and more courts are reluctant to bar all computer/Internet access because we now have computer monitoring...and computer searches.. We can still have prohibitions for offenders that bypassed efforts or disregarded least restrictive. We also have the issue that technology is getting blurred so to speak. Many of these gaming devices or more than just being able to play games. You can browse the Internet, you can chat, etc. That was all mentioned in the above I believe. So for a court to not order conditions to apply to these devices is like ordering only conditions on a Windows based machine because the offender only used Windows XP to get child porn or to entice a minor. After all they could still use an Apple under that reasoning... That is a bit narrow and silly. The issue that the article notes as these devices, unlike Windows and Apple machines, can’t be as easily monitored. So can a court find computer monitoring appropriate but do nothing with a gaming device that has the same capabilities? Doesn’t seem logical. Now as for limiting this to just the crime...of conduct or past conduct.... what about treatment needs? After all sex offender’s usually have treatment conditions imposed. These treatment programs quite frequently have components that require no viewing porn (Gee and an a big part of the Internet is full of that stuff). So limiting restrictions is more involved than just the conviction didn’t involve that. There is quite frequently a supervision perspective that requires the added condition...for not only risk but treatment purposes....(Yeah...probation officers besides worrying about risk also have to make sure treatment occurs). Courts and parole also want to make sure offenders get the treatment they need...treatment that is effective. Yes, an you are right conditions can’t be added without the Court consent...for probation...Although there are some states, like New Hampshire that allow probation officers to order special conditions related to the offense. Yeah it is based on some rationale basis. Now, JohnDoeUtah, I wouldn’t expect you to know this as you were never on probation or a probation officer...but frequently there is a condition imposed that ... “you shall follow your probation officer’s instructions.” Translation...if the incest offender asked for permission and was told no..he would be in jeopardy of this condition (depending upon the jurisdiction). Even if he didn’t ask permission but made some comment like I am going to the park...and the officer said no...there would be a problem. Now, John old boy you are right that the po can’t tell the offender anything he/or she feels...like you shall only drink coke as opposed to pepsi..or something silly. You also can’t instruct an offender to give up a right or something like that. But if the instruction makes sense it will stand. Additionally, many sex offenders convicted of offenses involving minors frequently get a condition that you shall not frequent places where minors congregate or play...WITHOUT permission of your probation officer. This would be a special condition imposed. Now I have never said every sex offender will commit a new sex crime. But no matter how you slice it. frequently the best predicator (admittedly not fool proof) is whether someone committed a crime in the past. Also....the study you are mentioned does not reflect that regular every day folks are more dangerous than sex offenders. It reflects that over 95% of all sexual offense arrests were committed by “first-time sex offenders”.... notice the phrase.... “first time sex offender”.... does that mean they were offenders of another kind...and this was just their first sex offense? Maybe. There are studies that reflect most crimes are committed by repeat offenders (not necessarily sex offenders). There is also at least one study that found those child porn case convictions... you know those sex offenders considered less dangerous as they only were “pictures”.. actually committed numerous contact offenses in the past (for which they were never prosecuted). This study also limited to NY...and before Adam Walsh ...It was done in 2008...two years after Adam Walsh..BUT NY is not yet compliant with Adam Walsh. That said, your study is intriguing ... but lets not twist it shall we to imply that sex offenders should be elected to high office and put in charge of all the schools. Again, we seem always to get on this issue of sex offender registration. This article was about offenders under supervision and gaming devices. The reason why there are on supervision...is someone...a judge or parole commission weighed the case and stated yep they need to be on supervision...for risk...for treatment, etc. The article also draws attention to gaming devices as they may have been overlooked...because folks are looking at them as one dimensionally..ie. You can only play games with them. That is not true anymore. Now as far as spreading fear among the readers.....how many you think are out there that are not probation, parole officers or sex offenders...okay...maybe the sex offenders are a bit fearful.. I mean if it weren’t for you and Rudy101 there is what maybe five or six non-sex offenders reading this stuff. Again, this is for the probation/parole officer trying to do a difficult job. Unlike you and Rudy101 I try not to post my comments on every place where a sex offender is mentioned to bring up how unfair it is we have sex offender registration laws. I try to stay on topic. That said, Welcome back... you and Rudy101 add to the ratings! I am told if I break 1,000 folks I might get a box of cigars (I made that last part up..the only thing I get is intellectual exercise... Okay...time for a cigar before I strain myself)

12. JohnDoeUtah on 03/02/2011:

    I agree with 13; Art has a way of spreading fear among his readers. Granted he did actually show reference to instances where persons have used gaming consoles to lure young people; neither of these people were repeat offenders, nor registered sex offenders. If a judge decides a probationer, who used these services to facilitate thier crimes, cannot use gaming-consoles to connect to the internet (but can use it to play games offline), or cannot use social networking sites, as part of thier probation conditions - that is up too the judge. However, these options should only be reserved for and allowed for those offenders who abused these services to facilitate thier crimes, some courts have determined such restricts cannot be placed on those without the predicate abuse; probation conditions must be narrow in scope and tailored specifically to the offender. A one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate. Some states are different, but atleast where I live, probation officers cannot add conditions onto a probationer without first going to the judge (which is the way it should be everwhere, Due Process). Art; please remain vigil, but do not give readers the wrong impression that probation officers can do whatever they want to an probationer on the whim. Such as your statement about telling an incest offender he cannot go to the park; if his probation conditions do not bar it, he doesn't have to ask your permission at all. Lastly, you go on to speak about sex offenders and adults, meeting online, etc. Again, you advocate that sex offenders are going to rape anyoe and everyone ("you know taking the odds as they are") - fear mongering. This Study from New York in 2008 states that 95% of all new sex crime is committed by non-registrants (Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State's sex offender registration and notification law. Sandler, Jeffrey C.; Freeman, Naomi J.; Socia, Kelly M., Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Vol 14(4), Nov 2008, 284-302.)[http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2008-18509-003]; so, the statistics support that "regular everyday normal people" are more of a danger than registered sex offenders...

13. computerpo on 03/02/2011:

    Let me get this straight 13...so I follow the logic... A sex offender who is on supervision for sexually abusing his/her own family...draws the line at sexually abusing someone elses kids. This article is about assessing risk...for supervision officers supervising sex offenders. There is no misinformation here. Some sex offenders can and do commit the offense again...and again. Not all but some. And some use whatever means they can...including gaming devices to get at a kid. It is important for officers to know about the risk so they can deal with it accordingly....not because all sex offenders will do it...but because it is a possibilty. And it just takes one such case, ignored by an officer to ruin their day and someone elses. Lets take it out of the high tech area a minute. An incest offender decides to go to a kiddie park and actually asks his officer can I go. Does the officer say...you know, stats say you are not likly to cause a problem...and they also say, you are more likely to molest you own kids...So the officer saids sure why not...taking a gamble based upon the odds (stats). Personally, I don't think it is right to gamble with kids safey based upon the odds. Additionally, you bring up a good point... not all sex offenders are child molesters.... So adult women (or men) should be perfectly happy to unknowningly connect with some sex offender online ... I mean after all they are perfectly safe...you know taking the odds as they are. Folks need to make these choices for themselves...based upon the information and take precautions as they see fit. That is what life is about. I am sure folks would also want to know if they are involved with a drug dealer, murderer, or some assaultive too. Finally, here is a hint to all those folks who are sex offenders. Don't read the blog here. It will only upset you. Not because it is talking about you directly but becasue it talks about things that can happen. It is about preparing probation, parole officers, etc. so they can stop those sex offenders who are not as reformed as you are. I wish you the best..keep showing how reformed you are and stay out of trouble. But don't get peeved that this blog is helping officers deal with those that aren't reformed...or reformed yet. It is about managing risk...not ignoring it to make sex offenders feel safe and wanted.

14. 13 on 03/02/2011:

    If people don't want their kids playing on-line games, then STOP BUYING THEM. Many sites ask that a parent sign or acknowledge that the gaming site is for people over 16. If there is a worry that predatory behavior can occur, then I'm sorry, but keep kids off these sites. Period. All sex offenders are not all child molesters. The faster we get out of that mind-set, the better off and frankly LESS paranoid, society is going to be. Statistically, children are more likely to be sexually abused by a family member or close family friend and not a stranger on a gaming site. If Corrections are to have any credibility, let's stop spreading misinformation; anything else is just fear-mongering.

15. computerpo on 03/02/2011:

    The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NetSmartz) http://www.netsmartz.org/Parents has information to help parents, teachers, and law enforcement to help teach Internet safety. Please take a look.

16. mom on 03/02/2011:

    Really this COMPUTER CRIME and CORRECTIONS is on the rise. I am in school and we were just talking about this in class. It is sad all these hackers, a bunch of monsters. Parents want to keep buying this for thier children, some may monitor where they go and others just let their children stay on these machines with no supervision. I have a son that just turned 14 who came home this weekend and told his daddy and I what he was looking at on the computer and then wanted me to get his two younger brothers out the way so he could look at this stuff. I told him if that is what you do in the group home or some where else, not happening here. I was and still have a problem because I had a gut feeling this is what he was doing!!!!!!!!!!!! I spoke to him and tried showing him information about all these games he thought it was a joke. Children today thinks this is all funny. We just had a few sex offenders that registered in my community and guess what guys the last one was a female. This is just another way for children to become victims of sexual abuse