Friday, February 23, 2007

Protecting Our Innocents

Dear Readers,
.
With hope that you will pardon us this brief interruption in our regularly scheduled programming, we would like to bring your attention to a recent post by our dear friend Kathleen Eckelt at Forensic Talk. Time and again, over these several months shared together, many of us have, individually and collectively, turned to Kathleen to help us better understand the science relative to this discussion and to the exposure of the Hoax. As an accomplished forensic nurse and a willing teacher, Ms. Eckelt has answered these calls each time they have been made, and, many times without any of us needing to ask. Today, it is her turn to call upon us.
.
Kathleen writes:

I have a topic very close to my heart, which I need to post about today, as it now personally affects our family. I ask that everyone please read, support, respond with public comments, pass this link along to as many people as they can, and also contact their state representatives about this matter:

“With all the publicity and controversy surrounding Jessica's Law recently, the
general public may believe that our states are finally getting their act together with regards to protecting our children from sex offenders.

"Jessica's Law" refers to the Jessica Lunsford Act passed in Florida which mandates a minimum sentence of 25 years and a maximum of life in prison for first-time child sex offenders. All across the country, states, counties, and individual communities are banding together to impose more severe restrictions on the movements and actions of sex offenders, such as California's Proposition 83.

“Many communities are now instituting restrictions on how close a registered offender can live to schools, parks, and day care centers. They are telling the offenders, in a clear loud voice, We don't want you in our neighborhoods!

“And this is good. I believe paroled offenders' movements and actions should be closely monitored for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, as my family and I found out last week, these laws don't go far enough to protect our children from the very offenders who perpetrate 90-95% of all child sex abuse cases.”

“Our daughter was informed last week that a registered child sex offender (her ex's uncle) was living at the same residence where her children were visiting their father on week ends. He is on parole for a 2nd degree child sex abuse offense.”

If time allows, please visit Ms. Eckelt’s Forensic talk to read the balance of her post: click here.
.
Please know that we are quite grateful for any assistance or encouragement you might offer Ms. Eckelt.
.
Thank you,
.
Your friends at LieStoppers

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Our thoughts are with you. Your article was chilling and every one of us need to stand up for rights of children to grow up free from sexual abuse.

kbp said...

The worries this situation creates are terrible. Nobody should have to endure such.

Anonymous said...

Something is missing here...if the uncle is currently on parole, he would not be allowed to live anywhere where there are children present, even if they are only visiting. If he were off parole, this would be a family issue, not one for law enforcement. Keep in mind that your child or granddchild could be the next victim of these banishing laws. If he/she has relations with his/her underage "friend" they are subject to all of the sex offender laws. Do you want the courts in your household dictating to you? We are returning to the days of Nazi Germany and I thought this was America. There are so many unintended consequences of a Jessica's Law that you have not even thought of. Be careful...you or your family could be next. It only takes an accusation to get a conviction these days.

Anonymous said...

re Cedarford's credibility

I urge all friends of Liestoppers to Google "Cedarford." He has a deserved reputation as a rabid anti-Semite. There are even sites dedicated to his anti-Semitism.

Jim Clyne

Anonymous said...

I really can't get behind any type of manditory sentencing laws. There has to be some room for discretion for the circumstances.
A 20 year old who has consentual relations with a 16 year old could get convicted as a "child sexual offender." And while I wouldn't necessarily approve of such a relationship, I wouldn't want to see the 20 year old sentenced to 25 to life. And regardless of whether one feels a teenager has been manipulated, I can't equate the circumstance with that of raping an eight year old.