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.