Hot For Teacher No More

An AP report Friday showed that ten states have taken action in the past few months to crack down on sexually abusive teachers in our nation's schools. This comes on the heels of a previous AP study that found 2570 educators had lost their teaching credentials or otherwise been sanctioned from 2001-05 because of sexual allegations involving students. The report goes on to state:

While the vast majority of America's roughly 3 million public school teachers are committed professionals, a disturbing number have engaged in sexual misconduct. When faced with evidence of abuse, administrators sometimes fail to let others know about it, and legal loopholes let some offenders stay in the classroom. Experts who track sexual abuse say the problem is even bigger than those numbers suggest. Underreporting is common, they say, because victims often are ostracized and accusations are difficult to prove. Governors, state education officials and lawmakers have led the push for new measures, which include tougher penalties for teachers who abuse students, punishment for administrators who fail to properly oversee their faculty, and an effort to train an entire state's corps of teachers to recognize potential abusers in their midst.

These measures include Maine legislation that will require school districts to share information on a teacher disciplined for any reason, including sexual abuse, as well as a Utah law that will permanently revoke the license from any educator guilty of sexual abuse. Several other loopholes have also been closed off or severely curtailed in various states:

• Backroom deals. Florida's new ethics law for teachers bars school districts from entering into confidential agreements with teachers who get in trouble. Such deals crop up around the country, allowing schools to remove a problem teacher but letting that educator quietly move on to another district or state.

• Failing to report. Kentucky's law raised the stakes for officials who fail to report allegations of abuse, bringing 90 days in jail for a first offense and up to five years in prison for repeat violations.

• Problem teachers returning to the classroom. Colorado would require any teacher who lost a license for sexual misconduct to promise never to teach again. The measure awaits Gov. Bill Ritter's signature. Virginia closed a gap that made it possible for teachers who abuse students to be hired by another school district in the time between when they are fired and when the state Education Department is notified.

• South Carolina looked beyond punishment, instead creating a statewide training program that aims to instruct 10,000 teachers, administrators, guidance counselors, coaches and school nurses on how to prevent, identify and report cases of abuse.

Now, don't get us wrong, we are 100% behind the notion that sexually abusive educators have absolutely no business working in our childrens' schools. If a teacher thinks that he/she should be dating (or worse) someone in their teens (or worse), then he/she should face the appropriate consequences, including job-related sanctions as well as possible criminal charges. These people do not belong in the educational system, no matter how well they can explain Chaucer or teach derivatives. But what bothers us is the last paragraph of the report:

The training will focus not only on stopping sexual predators but on preventing simply inappropriate relationships, said schools Superintendent Jim Rex. Sometimes young, naive teachers do improper things, with no ill will toward the student, and get into trouble, such as texting students' cell phones or giving them a ride home. "So much of what schools do is based on trust. Not only must kids trust their teachers, but parents have to trust those teachers too," Rex said. "And schools have to earn that trust each and every day."

We've all heard of doctors practicing defensive medicine - ordering up myriad tests to cover every base in an effort to avoid liability - but we're afraid that the educational climate is getting to a tipping point where teachers are practicing defensive mentoring. As we think back to our nascent years, we recall that our very best teachers were those who were indeed willing to cross an invisible barrier and give us that extra attention we sought or needed, the pat on the back when things weren't going well, or the ride home when our parents got stuck at work.

Granted, in our case the pat on the back never turned into a hand on the ass, but it is a shame that we're losing this teacher-student relationship that goes beyond the in-class pedagogy in the name of fighting sexual abuse. Clearly, the one-tenth of one percent of bad apple teachers are resulting in a significantly devalued education for the rest of our children.

Around the Square (06.02.08)

Today marks the first installment of a new piece called Around the Square that we'll be posting periodically (hopefully a couple of times a week) that will capture some of the interesting stories out there percolating in the news feeds and blogosphere that may not rise up to the level of a full posting, but are still worth briefly writing about. We're calling it Around the Square because we often feel as if we're a lonely town crier screaming at the top of our lungs about the obvious and apparent injustices placed on those accused of sex crimes, while the restless and bloodthirsty mob is gathering nearby with pitchforks and torches in tow.


We start with a story from Hamilton, NJ, where a popular high school football coach seems to be getting railroaded by the local prosecutor for pulling a female student away from a 6-year old that she was harassing. He has been charged with criminal sexual contact for allegedly rubbing against the 18-year old student's buttocks while pulling her away. (The Trentonian, Trenton, NJ - June 1)

Carl Jordan, 39, has been charged with criminal contact following an incident in April when his groin allegedly rubbed against an 18-year-old female student’s buttocks. Jordan’s attorney, Robert Wills, said the U.S. Naval Academy grad pulled the female student away from a 6-year-old boy whom she was allegedly harassing. Saying Jordan “did nothing wrong,” DiStephano concluded his public statement by noting that the incident occurred out in the open and not “behind closed doors.” As DiStephano sat down, local residents clapped their hands in a round of approval.

Remember our post from Friday critiquing the KIDS Act bill currently in Congress? Apparently the great state of Tennessee has already decided to require sex offenders to submit their email addresses and IM screen names, effective July 1st. (Eyewitness News, Memphis, TN - May 28, 2008)

Starting July 1st, Tennessee sex offenders are required to report their e-mail addresses, user names, and screens names to Tennessee’s Sex Offender Registry. Lawmakers created the new requirement for sex offenders during this year’s legislative session in Nashville. Police say the requirement will make it easier for them to spot sex offenders trolling for prey online.

Did you know that Arizona is using GPS devices to track some sex offenders, and they have been doing so since 2006? We didn't either. But apparently they are, costing Arizona taxpayers $180 a month for the tracking devices. If a device enters an "exclusionary zone," a signal is immediately sent to the offender's probation officer. (GPS News Update & GPS Review - June 1, 2008)

In each case, the child molesters are told there are
certain areas where they can't go, Sanders said. If they go into an
"exclusionary zone," the ankle bracelet sounds an alarm and immediately notifies
his probation officer.If the probation officer thinks it's necessary, he or she
can immediately call the police, Sanders said.Exclusionary zones could include
playgrounds, school yards and victims' neighborhoods.

Sex Offender Research blog is preaching to the choir with its recent posting of an academic article from the University of Manchester in the UK. It's key finding on sex offender reintegration into society? It's lacking.

The process of reintegration of offenders after release from prison, or during a community sentence, is a key aim of criminal justice policy. This article provides details from recent research that investigated the barriers and opportunities to employment for sex offenders. The authors describe the barriers that are faced by sex offenders and the anxieties that employers experience when employing sex offenders. The authors conclude that the approach taken by the State is less than reintegrative and serves to increase the barriers and reduce the opportunities for employment for sex offenders.

Why the KIDS Act Is a Bad Idea

In yet another example of Congress favoring political expediency in an election year over common sense, the Senate last week passed a bill called the KIDS (Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual predators) Act. This bill purportedly will require convicted sex offenders to register their email addresses and IM screen names with a federal database for the express intent of keeping sex offenders away from social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook.

From Politico:

Under the registration requirement approved by the Senate, social networking
sites would have access to the government database of e-mail addresses and
screen names and would be encouraged to ban those on it. It would be a violation
of parole or probation to use different online identifiers. The National Center
for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) supports the bill, as does MySpace,
Facebook, Microsoft and the American Family Association. One catch for
Democrats: So too, of course, does the presumptive Republican presidential
nominee, who issued a press release Wednesday calling on the House to pass it as
soon as possible.

Put frankly, this bill is all kinds of stupid. Here are four reasons why:

First and foremost, the efficacy of such a mandate is just shy of impossible. A person, sex offender or otherwise, can easily and anonymously sign up for and utilize a different email address and/or IM screen name as often as he chooses. For example, Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail and others offer unlimited access to new email addresses, limited only by one's imagination and patience.

Secondly, does the terrorist no-fly database ring a bell with these politicians? Maybe they should ask Senator Ted Kennedy or Nobel Prize winner Nelson Mandela about how well that bureaucratic data dump has worked. There are 44,000+ names on that list; how many hundreds of thousands of email addresses and IM names would end up on the KIDS Act list? And is it going to be publicly accessible? A one-character misspelling (e.g., Coolguy14 v. CooIguy14) could be the difference between a teenager on social networking sites versus a purported sex offender. The hassle that either would have to deal with is not acceptable.

Third, what does someone who was accused and convicted of sexual assualt within a marriage have to do with keeping social networking sites free from 'predators?' Or how does any sexual crime involving two adults have anything at all to do with access to those sites on the internet? If we can restrict a convicted rapist from discrete parts of the internet, why wouldn't we similarly be able to restrict him from certain parts of town? From a libertarian perspective, once a convicted felon has paid his debt to society in the form of imprisonment and/or other restrictions of liberty, he should be free to do as he pleases within the confines of the law. This is an unconscionable power-grab away from the liberty of sexual felons in the name of children's safety.

Finally, the public policy behind this bill is too broad in that it purports to target social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook that have a large contingent of minors accessing it. What about other social networking sites not as heavily emphasized on minors such as Twitter, various news sites or sports message boards? Are sexual felons also banned from using those sites?

It should be clear by now, given all the holes in the bill as passed by the Senate, that the KIDS Act should be thrown into the trash and tried again. But it's unclear how likely that is in the current environment that supports further and further restriction of the rights of sexual felons. At least two Democrats in the House of Representatives (Rep. John Conyers - MI and Rep. Bobby Scott - VA) seem to understand the uselessness of the registration component, as they have spearheaded a version of the bill without that piece in the past. It's worth staying tuned to see how the House handles the bill this time around.

Aren't These the Guys We're Supposed to Trust?

Although this isn't a traditional sex crimes story, it once again highlights how the folks in charge of investigating and prosecuting these crimes often are causing as many problems as they are purportedly solving. Today's case of interest is actually a federal civil case filed in New York by Jane Doe, a 17-year old girl who claims that Harrison (NY) police officers violated her fundamental right to privacy by repeatedly viewing a videotape depicting her performing various sexual acts with her boyfriend. The police came upon this tape (in her presence, as she was detained) while searching her boyfriend's home upon his arrest for the sale and possession of marijuana.

Harrison PD's Finest (photo credit: http://www.westchestergov.com/)

From the Smoking Gun:

The girl claims that police watched the video in her presence "while laughing,"
and that they put a camcorder in her face and "mockingly" asked her questions
about the explicit video as it played. She also alleges that a Harrison
detective told her, "I should beat your ass for this. I hope your parents beat
your ass." The teenager claims that the investigator also retrieved anal beads
from a bedroom, put them in her face, and asked, "What do you do with these--put
them in your mouth?" The girl charges that cops subsequently played the video
"sufficiently close to the cell in which the boyfriend was incarcerated so that
he could hear the audio component of the video," and that they laughed about the
video and made "repeated references by name to his girlfriend as she was
depicted on the video." She also contends that the Harrison officers "thereafter
played the video for other members of the department to watch for their
amusement, sexual gratification, and to further degrade Plaintiff."

Does Jane Doe have a meritorious claim here? Under the 14th Amendment and 42 USC § 1983, the right to privacy covers a substantial number of issues. The Supreme Court has noted that the right to privacy is "the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters." Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599 (1977). And the 10th Circuit has stated that an “individual's expectation of privacy for constitutional purposes is legitimate only if the information is ‘highly personal or intimate.’ Nilson v. Layton City, 45 F.3d 369, 372 (10th Cir. 1995).

We can think of no more highly personal or intimate information than what Jane Doe showed on that videotape. There are some who may argue that she should not have made the tape in the first place, and that the police properly seized the tape using standard assumptions of probable cause with respect to the boyfriend. Both statements may be true, but if what Jane Doe alleges about the humiliation and public viewings of the video is true, the Men in Blue of Harrison PD in New York rewrote the definition of reasonableness to an extent far beyond what could have ever been contemplated. Let’s hope Jane Doe finds justice here.

More Coverage:
NY Daily News - Westchester Cops in Sex Tape Scandal
NY Post - Police Sex Tape Scandal
The Lower Hudson Journal News - Harrison Cop Denies Allegations in Sex Tape Suit

Jilted High School Ex-Boyfriend Charged with Child Pornography

Alex Phillips is a 17-year old high school student from La Crosse, Wisconsin. He may not be the brightest crayon in the box, but his story is one that once again calls into question the legislative sanity of some of the overreach of our laws regarding what constitutes 'child pornography.'

It turns out that Phillips at some point in the last year was friendly with a 16-year old girl called HLK (14 months his junior) who sent him two explicit photos of her completely naked in different positions. She took the photos with her cell phone camera and sent them to his email address. Phillips, apparently miffed that HLK had started seeing someone else recently, decided to post the photos (with lewd captions) to his MySpace account.
From the criminal complaint (h/t The Smoking Gun):

"The [MySpace] page showed two nude images of a female. The first was full frontal nudity of a white, dark-haired female and the second was the buttocks, anus and vagina of a female. [...] [The victim] stated that the images were of her and that she had taken them with her cell phone several months ago and had sent them to Alex Phillips' email address. She stated she did not give him permission to transfer the images anywhere else."

When questioned by the police, Phillips initially refused to take the photos off of MySpace, claiming that he was "keeping them up" even if he could go to jail over this, but later relented. He stated that he put the photos online because he was venting and that he didn't mean to harm HLK but that he realized that he "probably should not have done this." Phillips has since been charged with two felonies: possession of child pornography and sexual exploitation of a child under 18 years of age; as well as misdemeanor defamation.

Frankly, this is appalling and an absurd misuse of the intent of the laws against child pornography. There is no question that it was incredibly stupid for Phillips to post the explicit photos of HLK online, but the only criminal charge he should possibly face should be that of defamation for his lewd captions that went with the photos. Did the Wisconsin legislature really have a boyfriend/girlfriend spat in mind between teenagers when they drafted these child pornography laws? Is it unreasonable to believe that 16-18 year-olds who in many states can legally have sex with each other might also take photos of themselves while doing so; or in an attempt to titillate each other for what might come next? This is supposed to be child pornography?

Let's also keep in mind that HLK produced these photos herself and sent them of her own free will to Alex Phillips (aside: does this mean that HLK is guilty of the PROTECT Act in light of yesterday's Supreme Court ruling?). According to the Wisconsin legislature, Phillips was guilty of child pornography as soon as he opened her email attachment, and was guilty of sexual exploitation of a child as soon as he posted the photos online. Yet was there any consideration given by the state of Wisconsin that another "child" (legally defined) could be the one performing these acts?

Apparently not, because Phillips' name is already all over the national media and internet and will forever be linked with the scarlet letters of 'child pornography,' even if the charges do not stick. His future is already written, as colleges, possible employers, friends and romantic partners will have to take a leap of faith that he's just a kid who made a mistake by posting his ex-girlfriend's pictures online, instead of actually being a social pariah who deals in kiddie porn.

More Coverage:

The Smoking Gun - Teen Nabbed For Naked MySpace Photos
Gravy & Biscuits - Alex Phillips MySpace Photo Scandal
La Crosse Tribune - Teen Faces Child Porn Charges
Chicago Tribune - Alex Phillips, MySpace
Gawker - Child Porn: Teen Arrested on Child Porn Charges After Posting Photos of His Ex

Parole Board Revocation Hearing

A couple of months ago I was asked by the pastor-wife of a parolee who had been violated by his parole officer to take a look at the case.

The facts were that the parole officer claimed he had seen pornography on the parolee’s laptop during an unannounced home visit, a violation of the terms of his parole. The parole officer did not show any pornographic images on the laptop to the parolee when he violated him and cuffed him. He just said he had seen them.

Later, the parole officer remembered that what he had first characterized as mere pornography had in fact been child pornography. Even later the same parole officer remembered that there also had been images of penetration of children!

Of course you would assume his memory could be checked by a look at a copy of the computer’s hard drive, but parole hearings do not provide much in the way of due process. As the parole officer was only too happy to inform me in one of our first conversations, all that would matter at the revocation hearing would be his testimony as to what he saw.

No physical evidence would be needed. Whatever he remembered seeing would be the only “evidence” needed to send my client back to prison.

My only recourse was to go to a Superior Court and petition for a writ of mandate (mandamus), ordering the parole board and the D.A. to allow the defense access to the physical evidence.

This is not an easy thing to do. It requires extraordinary circumstances, well pled, and many more petitions for such writs are turned down than are accepted. So I of course I am unusually pleased to post to this blog that today I received the Superior Court’s signed order, which reads, in part,

“Respondent (Board of Parole Hearings of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) is commanded immediately upon receipt of this writ . . . to provide Petitioner’s Attorney with access to the evidence to be used [against his client].”

It is so great when justice works!

Movies- Deliver Us From Evil and Capturing the Friedmans

Two movies dealing with sexual abuse. Both movies are well reviewed and were nominated for Oscars. Capturing the Friedmans has provoked debate by many who have seen it. It might be a good idea to watch the movie with more than one person because people have had completely different views on whether the defendants are guilty. When the movie was shown at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah, it was reported some viewers were shouting at each other afterwards.
Reviews Friedmans
Trailer Friedmans-
Reviews-Deliver Us From Evil
Trailer Deliver Us From Evil