By Steve Gordon
I just wrote a post about getting over it and...
Thursday I came home from playing golf to find my estranged son Jim here. He said he came to see my parents, not me. He also brought some news that I would be a grandfather - or rather that my parents would be great grandparents. It would be his first child. Chrissy, who I have never met, was not with him. When I came in mom said he had some news and his response was, "You can tell him when I leave."
They are expecting next month, which is a month Crissy and I share a birthday (the 26th). Mom mentioned that and Jim he said they don't want to have it on or near her birthday. He made light of the fact that it would be my birthday as well. I have to mention that this is my only son and he wrote in a Fathers's Day card he sent to me at the county prison, "I will not forsake you."
During the short visit mom brought up to him about burying the hatchet. He basically threatened to walk out and said something like things will happen in time. No one knows what "in time" means. It could be an indefinate put aside thing that his mother was so good at when convenient. Anyway, he also brought up a pair of fireman's boots my dad once had because as Jim works for a fire safety system company and frequently has to work standing in water. The boots are long gone having deteriorated over time, but dad did still have a pair of hunting boots that fit and he took them.
We aren't sure why he came. Was it for the news he could have revealed before 8 months had passed, or was it for the boots? One thought is he has driven by before but would not come in if my car was outside. There was a recent baby shower but mom was not invited. When told of our mini family gathering today and invited he made excuses why they couldn't come. Why can't people be more honest? Not that he wasn't, we don't know, but it is just how it sounded. He learned making excuses growing up not from me.
He specifically told me not to try to contact him or send cards. Two weeks before my release he drove four hours to the prison where I was, he never visited me there before then, to tell me that. I have not driven by his house or tried to contact him directly. Mom was of the understand he didn't want her to call either. He never answers his phone or calls back anyway she says. He came here a couple months before that he came by here to tell them he wouldn't be coming around because I would be here. He hadn't been here on over two years.
I just thought I would relate this as I had just address the "get over it" factor. His forgiveness is not for me but for him. The longer he carries this around the more it will affect his life. That is how I see it anyway. Do I want contact, meaningful contact, with him. YES. I have come to accept certain things, like them or not, I wonder if he has?
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Get over it
By Steve Gordon
As many know, the legal/judicial system is not necessarily fair. But them life is not fair and nobody ever guaranteed that it would be.
Recently I received notice from the PA Supreme Court. I had filed for two days unlawful incarceration due to a paperwork error from Bucks County. I had all the evidence to show when I was arrested and taken into custody and then the faulty time credit from Bucks County to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. This is all on the county as the DOC was only following what it was ordered from the Common Pleas Court.
Here is what the order read: "AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 2010, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED." What is interesting is that Bucks County submitted no objections to my filing except to say that it was not their responsibility, it was the DOC's. I guess the court agreed, but there was no written opinion.
To further the issue, there were those who thought my serving the full 10 years was not right. The DOC wanted me out of the overcrowded prison system and deemed me no threat. The Parole Board, fueled by a (vindictive) ADA, who lost his job recently for allegedly being too hard lined, never paroled me. It is water over the dam or spilled milk or whatever other cliche you want to use.
The fighter and rebel inside of me wants to challenge all of this, but it isn't that easy going up against the system. I have the fight but I don not have a law degree nor the legal knowledge. Another consideration is to consider the likely hood of succeeding. I just can't do it. I have to move on and as the Eagles sang in one of their many hits, Get Over It.
I am still waiting on a ruling from the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on the issue of Megan's Law as I outlined in a previous post. One one hand the longer it takes could mean a favorable ruling or a split decision and writing of an opinion and a dissenting opinion. On the other hand, it could be just that they shuffled it to the bottom of the pile. Stay tuned.
As many know, the legal/judicial system is not necessarily fair. But them life is not fair and nobody ever guaranteed that it would be.
Recently I received notice from the PA Supreme Court. I had filed for two days unlawful incarceration due to a paperwork error from Bucks County. I had all the evidence to show when I was arrested and taken into custody and then the faulty time credit from Bucks County to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. This is all on the county as the DOC was only following what it was ordered from the Common Pleas Court.
Here is what the order read: "AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 2010, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED." What is interesting is that Bucks County submitted no objections to my filing except to say that it was not their responsibility, it was the DOC's. I guess the court agreed, but there was no written opinion.
To further the issue, there were those who thought my serving the full 10 years was not right. The DOC wanted me out of the overcrowded prison system and deemed me no threat. The Parole Board, fueled by a (vindictive) ADA, who lost his job recently for allegedly being too hard lined, never paroled me. It is water over the dam or spilled milk or whatever other cliche you want to use.
The fighter and rebel inside of me wants to challenge all of this, but it isn't that easy going up against the system. I have the fight but I don not have a law degree nor the legal knowledge. Another consideration is to consider the likely hood of succeeding. I just can't do it. I have to move on and as the Eagles sang in one of their many hits, Get Over It.
I am still waiting on a ruling from the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on the issue of Megan's Law as I outlined in a previous post. One one hand the longer it takes could mean a favorable ruling or a split decision and writing of an opinion and a dissenting opinion. On the other hand, it could be just that they shuffled it to the bottom of the pile. Stay tuned.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Pennsylvania HB 2742 - Internet censorship for all sex offenders
This is an article I wrote and am distributing after attending a public hearing in Lower Makefield Township, Pennsylvania regarding HB 2742.
My name is Steve Gordon. I am a registered sex offender under Megan’s Law and I live in Lower Bucks County. When I read in the newspaper last Thursday morning that there was going to be a public hearing on a proposed bill to further the tracking and registration of sex offenders in the form of HB 2742 I changed my schedule for the day to make a point to be there.
I figured I would be the only sex offender present but that did not deter me. I delayed a shrub trimming job for another day, had a meeting with the Veterans Rep at the PA Careen Link and checked out a Job Fair at Bucks County Community College before committing the rest of the day to attending the hearing.
As I sat and listened to hours of somewhat repetitive testimonies, I was hoping the hearing would open the floor at the end to hear anyone present their view. I don’t think anyone expected a registered sex offender to attend to stand up for himself in what could be described as a potentially hostile environment. Unfortunately the hearing went long and time did not allow for this.
At the conclusion of the hearing I had a nice conversation with Rosemary Wuenschel, Chair of Staff to Pennsylvania State representative Steve Santarsiero. Subsequent to that conversation I am writing this article. I may post this, or a version of it, on my personal blog, Reentry to Society at www.restartingalife.blogspot.com.
The first person to speak, Carolyn Atwell-Davis of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children spoke about the dangers of the Internet. She very competently spoke of sex offenders and sex offenses against children and how predators can use the Internet, specifically social networks to lure children into bad situations. She also spouted statistics about sex offences and sex offenders.
One of the last speakers was Karl Baker representing the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Mr. Baker shot down nearly every stereotype Ms. Davis, Michael Pesce of the Network of Victim Assistance (NOVA) of Bucks County, Ken Coluzzi, Chief of Police of Lower Makefield Township, and Colleen Klock, parent of four children spoke about. It visibly upset the panel, most notably representative Santarsiero. I understand that, he spent a lot of time writing this bill.
In between Ms. Davis and Mr. Baker there was a large hole that nobody filled. For starters, what was glaringly left out of all the statistics presented was the percentage of sex offenders who committed crimes involving children. I would have like to address that question to Ms. Davis before the panel and representative Santarsiero.
One of the things I emphasized to Ms. Wuenschel in our chat was the generalization of groups of people, of sex offenders. I am a registered sex offender but my offense did not have anything to do with children therefore why should I be subject to this 1984 type of witchhunt this bill seeks to impose?
With the panel and Ms. Davis and company on left and Mr. Baker on the right I was smack dab in the middle. My younger brother has four step-grandchildren under the age of 9 and if anything happened to them it would be a terrible thing for the family. It would be a terrible thing for anything of the nature of what was discussed to happen to any child and it would devastate any family.
I think it was Chief Coluzzi or maybe representative Santarsiero who brought up the issue of protecting the children and implementing locally restrictions on where sex offenders could live. These municipalities in Pennsylvania or anywhere are draconian in these kinds of actions. A number of states have repealed these restrictions. Nonetheless, the mentality is the same that drives this bill, and it is misguided in my opinion.
Actually, it is not just my opinion. On July 3, 2007 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published an editorial titled “Harm’s Way – Limiting an offenders residency won’t help children.” The editorial cited a 2005 study published in the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice that concluded in part “…there is no evidence that housing restrictions achieve this goal (of preventing sex crimes).”
It further said, “Most sexual perpetrators know their victims. A study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 93% of child sexual abuse victims knew their abuser and that 34% of them were family members.”
I conclude that a lot of what was said at the hearing was playing to public paranoia, a false paranoia. I do believe the intent to protect our children is noble, it is just in my opinion that the vehicle being ridden towards that goal has a flat tire.
Consider the follow published reports:
The USA Today in 2004 or 2005 wrote that Justice Department statistics showed sex offenders had a 2.5% recidivism rate. The only recidivism rate lower was homicide at 1.2%. For the record it reported Drug offenses at the top of the charts at a 41.2% recidivism rate.
The Wall Street Journal on January 14, 2005 wrote an article which stated that “Sex offenders were less likely than others to be rearrested for any offense – 43% sex offenders verses 68% non sex offenders.” It listed the source as Department of Justice.
Lets consider those findings. Testimony alluded to a low recidivism rate but it soft pedaled it and made light of it as the numbers were presented. I would like to have asked the panel if they were considering a bill to register drug offenders from social networking on the Internet and on their phones. You know, the same drug offenders that are selling drugs to the school kids? It seems that would be a lofty goal.
How about the notion that the Internet plays up to child victims knowing their abusers in relation to the pooh pooh thrown at Mr. Baker when he brought up statistics to that fact. I think from what I have read, “Uncle Charlie” is the guy that needs to be watched more than the guy that just got out of prison and lives on the next block. Mr. Baker did not make up nor manipulate those statistics.
I read an article in the Altoona Mirror when I was in prison about parole. It was probably 2005 but I didn’t date the article to be certain. It read, “The purpose of parole is to reintegrate individuals back into the community and give them a chance to live a conventional lifestyle. If an individual has served his sentence for a prior wrong act, his past should not be held against him.”
The fact is that this bill does exactly that, it holds a persons past against him. It also violates my First Amendment rights with its generalization of all sex offenders, as I have no history of a child sex offense.
For the record my offense was private in my own home and it was domestic in nature. It was wrong, I regret it, I am sorry my ex-wife became a victim. Nothing can change that. All parties have moved on. Please explain to me how I, or others in my position, who do not have offenses against children, is a threat.
Generalizations are dangerous. There were two state troopers present who gave a very good presentation of the dangers of the Internet. They were sincere and seem to be very honorable men. But in light of other police officers and officials who have committed wrongs and broken the law, would you generalize those two men and enact legislation geared toward censoring all law enforcement?
Anyone who knows anything about government knows that bills are amended many times over coming out of committee even before they hit the floor for a vote. I hope HB 2742 undergoes this scrutiny because it is flawed in the nature and for its being too wide open making generalizations of all sex offenders in an effort to protect children.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope you consider some of the things I have presented.
My name is Steve Gordon. I am a registered sex offender under Megan’s Law and I live in Lower Bucks County. When I read in the newspaper last Thursday morning that there was going to be a public hearing on a proposed bill to further the tracking and registration of sex offenders in the form of HB 2742 I changed my schedule for the day to make a point to be there.
I figured I would be the only sex offender present but that did not deter me. I delayed a shrub trimming job for another day, had a meeting with the Veterans Rep at the PA Careen Link and checked out a Job Fair at Bucks County Community College before committing the rest of the day to attending the hearing.
As I sat and listened to hours of somewhat repetitive testimonies, I was hoping the hearing would open the floor at the end to hear anyone present their view. I don’t think anyone expected a registered sex offender to attend to stand up for himself in what could be described as a potentially hostile environment. Unfortunately the hearing went long and time did not allow for this.
At the conclusion of the hearing I had a nice conversation with Rosemary Wuenschel, Chair of Staff to Pennsylvania State representative Steve Santarsiero. Subsequent to that conversation I am writing this article. I may post this, or a version of it, on my personal blog, Reentry to Society at www.restartingalife.blogspot.com.
The first person to speak, Carolyn Atwell-Davis of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children spoke about the dangers of the Internet. She very competently spoke of sex offenders and sex offenses against children and how predators can use the Internet, specifically social networks to lure children into bad situations. She also spouted statistics about sex offences and sex offenders.
One of the last speakers was Karl Baker representing the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Mr. Baker shot down nearly every stereotype Ms. Davis, Michael Pesce of the Network of Victim Assistance (NOVA) of Bucks County, Ken Coluzzi, Chief of Police of Lower Makefield Township, and Colleen Klock, parent of four children spoke about. It visibly upset the panel, most notably representative Santarsiero. I understand that, he spent a lot of time writing this bill.
In between Ms. Davis and Mr. Baker there was a large hole that nobody filled. For starters, what was glaringly left out of all the statistics presented was the percentage of sex offenders who committed crimes involving children. I would have like to address that question to Ms. Davis before the panel and representative Santarsiero.
One of the things I emphasized to Ms. Wuenschel in our chat was the generalization of groups of people, of sex offenders. I am a registered sex offender but my offense did not have anything to do with children therefore why should I be subject to this 1984 type of witchhunt this bill seeks to impose?
With the panel and Ms. Davis and company on left and Mr. Baker on the right I was smack dab in the middle. My younger brother has four step-grandchildren under the age of 9 and if anything happened to them it would be a terrible thing for the family. It would be a terrible thing for anything of the nature of what was discussed to happen to any child and it would devastate any family.
I think it was Chief Coluzzi or maybe representative Santarsiero who brought up the issue of protecting the children and implementing locally restrictions on where sex offenders could live. These municipalities in Pennsylvania or anywhere are draconian in these kinds of actions. A number of states have repealed these restrictions. Nonetheless, the mentality is the same that drives this bill, and it is misguided in my opinion.
Actually, it is not just my opinion. On July 3, 2007 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published an editorial titled “Harm’s Way – Limiting an offenders residency won’t help children.” The editorial cited a 2005 study published in the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice that concluded in part “…there is no evidence that housing restrictions achieve this goal (of preventing sex crimes).”
It further said, “Most sexual perpetrators know their victims. A study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 93% of child sexual abuse victims knew their abuser and that 34% of them were family members.”
I conclude that a lot of what was said at the hearing was playing to public paranoia, a false paranoia. I do believe the intent to protect our children is noble, it is just in my opinion that the vehicle being ridden towards that goal has a flat tire.
Consider the follow published reports:
The USA Today in 2004 or 2005 wrote that Justice Department statistics showed sex offenders had a 2.5% recidivism rate. The only recidivism rate lower was homicide at 1.2%. For the record it reported Drug offenses at the top of the charts at a 41.2% recidivism rate.
The Wall Street Journal on January 14, 2005 wrote an article which stated that “Sex offenders were less likely than others to be rearrested for any offense – 43% sex offenders verses 68% non sex offenders.” It listed the source as Department of Justice.
Lets consider those findings. Testimony alluded to a low recidivism rate but it soft pedaled it and made light of it as the numbers were presented. I would like to have asked the panel if they were considering a bill to register drug offenders from social networking on the Internet and on their phones. You know, the same drug offenders that are selling drugs to the school kids? It seems that would be a lofty goal.
How about the notion that the Internet plays up to child victims knowing their abusers in relation to the pooh pooh thrown at Mr. Baker when he brought up statistics to that fact. I think from what I have read, “Uncle Charlie” is the guy that needs to be watched more than the guy that just got out of prison and lives on the next block. Mr. Baker did not make up nor manipulate those statistics.
I read an article in the Altoona Mirror when I was in prison about parole. It was probably 2005 but I didn’t date the article to be certain. It read, “The purpose of parole is to reintegrate individuals back into the community and give them a chance to live a conventional lifestyle. If an individual has served his sentence for a prior wrong act, his past should not be held against him.”
The fact is that this bill does exactly that, it holds a persons past against him. It also violates my First Amendment rights with its generalization of all sex offenders, as I have no history of a child sex offense.
For the record my offense was private in my own home and it was domestic in nature. It was wrong, I regret it, I am sorry my ex-wife became a victim. Nothing can change that. All parties have moved on. Please explain to me how I, or others in my position, who do not have offenses against children, is a threat.
Generalizations are dangerous. There were two state troopers present who gave a very good presentation of the dangers of the Internet. They were sincere and seem to be very honorable men. But in light of other police officers and officials who have committed wrongs and broken the law, would you generalize those two men and enact legislation geared toward censoring all law enforcement?
Anyone who knows anything about government knows that bills are amended many times over coming out of committee even before they hit the floor for a vote. I hope HB 2742 undergoes this scrutiny because it is flawed in the nature and for its being too wide open making generalizations of all sex offenders in an effort to protect children.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope you consider some of the things I have presented.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)