Pro forma parolee porn prohibition properly pulled

Sep 10th, 2013 | By | Category: Courts, Parole, Sex Offenders, Spotlight
Share

Nexus sexus? Blanket restriction barred by Court

RightToPornBanning parolee from strip clubs and porn could violate First Amendment, says appellate court

Stephanie Francis Ward | American Bar Association Journal A restriction on viewing pornography and visiting strip clubs as a condition for parole infringed on an Alaska man’s constitutional rights, the Alaska Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

The matter involves Wassillie Johnston, 21, who pled guilty to third-degree sexual abuse of a minor. The incident happened in 2010, according to the Anchorage Daily News, and involved the then-18-year-old Johnston having “consensual” sex with a girl who was 14 years old. He is currently serving a two-year prison sentence…(Full text at ABA Journal)

DAPO agents supervising 290′s would do well to consider the linked article and attached decision well. It is currently the policy, in Region I at least, to impose blanket restrictions on sex offenders, despite the lack of a nexus between the special condition and the offender’s criminal history.

To wit, all 290 registrants have a residential restriction imposed, as though all sex offenders are prohibited by law from residing near schools or parks–Affected offenders must file a writ in order to have the extra-legal special condition rescinded.

Similarly, many 290′s in the state’s largest geographical parole region (again, Region I) are summarily prohibited from having access to computers despite a complete lack of computer use in the commitment offense or criminal history.

To be clear, for at least 3 decades a nexus between special conditions of parole and the commitment offense/criminal history has been the legal standard. Authorities in Alaska acted in conflict with well established law in imposing special conditions absent a supportable, justifiable and well detailed nexus between the criminal history and the restriction imposed. DAPO is similarly flaunting the law whenever pro forma special conditions of parole are imposed willy-nilly.

Now,  insofar as possession of non-child pornography is Constitutionally protected, like it or not, parolees cannot be barred from pornicating out-of-pocket (so to speak).  Of course, it is relatively simple to provide the needed legal justification for banning porn and internet access with child molesters, predators and stalkers–Pornography is invariably a staple to such offenders.

In the instant case, however, the offender was imprisoned for what is commonly known as statutory rape–He was 18 while the victim was 4 years his junior.  The victim and offender were acquaintances–She consented despite a lack of  the requisite seniority.  Which is to say, unless the offender’s case file reflects the use of pornography to lure the victim or some other porn related factor, what he chooses to view is of no concern to the parole authority.

So says the Court.  So says Paco.

Next case, please. -

Ad Nauseum

6 Comments to “Pro forma parolee porn prohibition properly pulled”

  1. Gadfly says:

    Attaboy! An absolutely awesome alliteration accomplished!

  2. Gadfly says:

    Paco, the only issue I take with the excerpted article is the way in which the introduction of the defendant is couched by using the term ‘having “consensual” sex with a girl who was 14 years old.’ There is no such animal as “consensual sex with a minor” in United States law that I am aware of, as this writer for the American Bar Association Journal undoubtedly knows. Certainly, the age difference between the offender and minor may be a mitigating factor in consideration of sentencing and terms of probation or parole. But that wording used in the context of this court finding is misleading, if not provocative. It almost negates the statutory definition of unlawful sexual intercourse by utterance, which is designed primarily to discourage and punish older men from taking advantage of younger teenage girls.

  3. Howie Katz says:

    Wouldn’t it be nice, if lawmakers in every state had the guts to revisit all these worthless but feel good restrictions on sex offenders. It is the child molesters that we need to concentrate our preventive efforts on, but even with them, those residence restrictions are … I hate to put it this way … inhumane when they in effect prohibit the offender from living anywhere within a city.

    • Bob Walsh says:

      That would require them to admit an initial error. Egomaniacs and narcissists are disinclined to do so.

  4. bulldogger says:

    For while now BPH in reg III has been throwing out charges that do not have nexis to the comitment offense. This includes strip clubs, computers and porn.