New York Times Texas Judge Orders Notices Warning of Sex Offender By ROSS E. MILLOY CORPUS CHRISTI, Tex. -- The former county appraiser was booked on
three felony indictments, a senior school district official resigned
and state legislators killed a plan to reorganize the Port of Corpus
Christi, the city's largest commercial enterprise. Out on Corpus Christi Bay, the U.S. Open Windsurfing Regatta
began and the speckled trout started biting again off Indian
Point. Ordinarily, such things would be hot topics in the bars along
Water Street and the harbor docks, but all anybody in this sunny
coastal resort wanted to talk about last week was the sex
offenders. On May 18, a judge ordered 21 registered sex criminals to post
signs on their homes and automobiles warning the public of their
crimes, and the results were almost immediate. One of the offenders
attempted suicide, two were evicted from their homes, several had
their property vandalized and one offender's father had his life
threatened, according to court testimony. "It's totally shocking what has happened here," said Gerald
Rogen, president of the Corpus Christi Criminal Defense Lawyers
Organization, who represents two of the offenders. "It's
frightening, as if we're going back to the times of scarlet letters,
public hangings and witch hunts." Although the state district judge who required the warnings,
Judge J. Manuel Bañales, later reduced to 14 the number of offenders
who must post the signs, he refused an appeal on Thursday to amend
his order. "They have only themselves to blame," Judge Bañales said. The signs — "DANGER: Registered Sex Offender Lives Here" — give
phone numbers for reporting "suspicious behavior." Bumper stickers
have similar wording. A portable version modeled after the
diamond-shaped "Baby On Board" stencils, complete with an adhesive
suction cup, were provided to the offenders. "Wherever they go," Judge Bañales said, "whatever time of day or
night, we want people to be aware of where these offenders are."
. Judge Bañales said Texas laws requiring that sex criminals'
pictures and addresses be posted on the Internet and in local
newspapers did not go far enough in protecting children from sexual
predators. "A lot of people can't afford to go on the Internet, particularly
in poorer neighborhoods," he said, "and some people just don't read
newspapers." Mr. Rogen, who is considering additional legal challenges to the
order, said the signs were cruel and unusual punishment that would
eventually be overturned by a higher court. But many people here applauded the warnings. "I think it's a great idea," said Adriana Quiroz, who lives in an
apartment complex where a sign was posted. "This way everyone knows
to stay away from that guy's place. Maybe we should have them for
thieves and killers, too." Samuel Holland, 25, a college student said, "If you're sick
enough to molest a child, you're sick enough to have a sign out in
your yard telling everyone you might do it again." But Edward A. Mallett, president of the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the range and variety of sexual
offenses made measures like the warning signs fundamentally
unfair. "When we hear the expression `sex offender,' our minds leap to
the worst possible case," Mr. Mallett said, "allowing politicians to
demonize an entire group of people, some of whom made errors in
judgment and others who suffer from serious psychological
disorders." Scott Matson, a researcher at the Center for Sex Offender
Management in Silver Spring, Md., which is financed by the
Department of Justice, said only Texas and Oregon had used the
warning signs, and usually on a limited basis for high-risk
offenders. "This is the broadest application of warning signs that I've
heard of," Mr. Matson said of Judge Bañales's order. "It's not
unique to have signs, but it's certainly uncommon to have that many
in one place." There has been little research on the effectiveness of such
signs, Mr. Matson said, and although many states require some kind
of notification process for the neighbors of convicted sex
offenders, balancing that warning with the privacy rights of the
criminal is always an issue. "The question is, What's the extreme?" Mr. Matson said. "I'm not
sure that a sign in the yard is any worse than a newspaper notice or
an Internet posting that billions of people can see." For John Robert Lee, 34, the signs have proven worse. Mr. Lee —
arrested on charges of indecency with a child in 1999 after a night
of drinking ended in an encounter with a 15- year-old girl — was
staying at his father's apartment on the bay last week when the
warning sign went up. That night, a stranger pounded on the door and angrily confronted
Mr. Lee's father, who has since been evicted. "The man said we shouldn't be allowed to stay around decent
people," Mr. Lee said. "He said that we should go live in a
cave." Copyright © 2001. New York Times. All rights reserved. saved from url: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/29/national/29CORP.html
May 29, 2001
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
