Are Americans increasingly taking the law into their own hands?

1-10-2014 National:

WASHINGTON, January 8, 2014 — Instances of citizen vigilantism – citizens exercising law enforcement practices without legal authority – have been showing up in the media more frequently. Apparently a growing number of American citizens feel as if their law enforcement officials are not doing enough to prevent crime and do not want to solely rely on the government for their personal security.

While violent crime in the U.S. is on the rise again for the first time after 2006 – 1.2 percent increase compared to 2012 after years of steep declines – law enforcement authorities face depleted resources due to severe budget cuts stemming from the recession, particularly in large urban areas. The reported rise in crime could be related at least in part to the growing phenomenon of citizens taking the law into their own hands.

In August, a Detroit man who had been accused of raping a 15 year-old girl with Down’s syndrome was repeatedly beaten by a group of people who spotted him on the street. The man was hospitalized for several hours and then went into hiding.

The parents of the girl and other residents of the neighborhood had grown increasingly impatient with the police’s slow investigation of the girl’s assault. The rape kit (physical evidence tested for sexual assault) that had been ordered after the alleged crime took 19 days after the report to get to a Michigan State Police lab.

While the police were still investigating, the name and address of the suspect spread through e-mail chains and flyers, which ultimately led to the violent attack. The community is now torn over the entire incident, with some people horrified by the brutal vigilantism but ..Continued.. by Drew Hendricks

Verbal Vigilantism? You be the judge.

No Date:

Vigilantism; Our definition:

Once the actual crime is over, then it is up to the laws of the day to punish for the criminal acts. Now, any actions towards persons convicted or accused of crimes, however subtle, which are not part of the sentence carried out by someone who is not under the sentencing court's jurisdiction executing the judges sentence, gets into the world of vigilantism. Persons who exact their own form of personal hate and harm, however subtle, to those who have committed crimes or are accused of crimes, cross the line of being a vigilante. Remember, it is every person's constitutional right, "to remain silent," and you are not required to love thy neighbor! Finally, if you close to act towards your neighbor when you do not have to, then you have crossed that vigilante line.

Comments made by public figures, likely they wish they hadn't, or are glad they did? Verbal / Political Vigilantism? You decide!

10) by a Florida legislator, Sen. Nancy Argenziano (se also #5 below), on bills in the Florida legislature which legislators are not agreeing on. April 2007:

Sen. Nancy Argenziano said those bills likely will die because of their "reactionary" nature. She said removing predators from a neighborhood might cause the predators to go into hiding.

"If you make it so hard on predators, they won't register, and we're going to have a harder time with knowing where they're going to live," she said.

"There's only a certain amount you can do besides taking them out and shooting them in the street - which is illegal." Quoted from: "Many Sex Predator Bills Run Into Resistance"

9) Georgia: by House Majority Leader Jerry Keen 8-16-2005:

House Republicans want to keep a closer eye on the state's worst sex offenders by mandating that they wear electronic tracking devices as long as they live in Georgia.

"If it becomes too onerous and too inconvenient, they just may want to live somewhere else," House Majority Leader Jerry Keen (R-St. Simons Island) said in a recent interview. "And I don't care where, as long as it's not in Georgia." [[[[snip]]]]

"I don't have a problem with [electronic monitoring] because of the aggravated nature of this crime," Keen said. "I'm more interested in the rights of the 8- or 10-year-old child whose innocence has been taken away from them than the rights of any people convicted of these crimes." Quoted from "Law to track sex offenders studied" for the rest of the story.

8) Florida: by County Commissioner Randy Harris 6-16-2005:

A county commissioner in Central Florida has offered a controversial proposal of sending the area's worst sex offenders out of the United States to Mexico, according to a Local 6 News report. Phone calls have bombarded Marion County Commissioner Randy Harris' office after he voiced his idea of banishing American sex offenders, "The American prison system is not a deterrent to these serious crimes," Harris said.

Harris said the answer is more severe punishment, Local 6 News reported.

He said the United States could strike a deal with Mexico and send the worst offenders to harsher Mexican prisons where it is more economical to house them, Local 6 News reported. "We can pay under a contractual agreement the cost in Mexico and again I'm sure it would be a huge savings to the American taxpayer," Harris said.

The idea is far from being widely accepted, Local 6 News reported. An unidentified woman told Local 6 News that she welcomes sex offenders into her mobile home park. Quoted from news: "Commissioner: Send Sex Offenders To Mexico" for the rest of the story.

7) Florida: by County Commissioner Randy Harris 4-23-2005:

The molester is dead and the community is divided -- over whether their condemnation killed a man that many had wished would vanish anyway. [[[snip]]] SIGNS OPPOSED Some said that Claxton had served his time and posed no threat. Some opposed the idea of signs, saying it would devalue their real estate and drum up fear. [[[snip]]]

The town is also fiercely debating how to manage its sexual offenders. Early this week, just before the Claxton fliers went up, Randy Harris, a county commissioner, urged that warning signs be posted in neighborhoods where convicted offenders live. ''I take no pleasure in hearing the report of anyone's death, even in this particular case,'' Harris said of Claxton's suicide. ``But I don't think we can go too far in providing information.''

Harris has found his strongest opponent in Marion County Sheriff Ed Dean, who believes warning signs would foster fear and violence. According to Dean, the county's 530-odd sexual predators are accounted for and have been visited by sheriff's deputies. Dean also said he plans to increase the frequency of such visits and notify people living within a mile of predators. ''I don't see what purpose signs would do, other than have an unintended consequence like this,'' said Dean. ``It creates hysteria.'' [[[snip]]]

Harris, for his part, said he would only strengthen his push to have warning signs posted in neighborhoods where sexual offenders lived. ''Real simple. There's been a suicide that occurred when we had 530 sex offenders in Marion County,'' said Harris. ``There are still 529.'' Quoted from "SEX OFFENDERS: Town torn over molester's suicide" for the rest of the story.

6) a Montana double header: by Rep. John Sinrud and Rep. Michael Lange:

A bill senators touted as a national model of a tough and smart way to both punish and treat sex offenders has been drastically changed by the House, and was approved Wednesday with more focus on punishment and less on treatment.

"Let's put the money where it should go, into prisons, not into the treatment of a sick freak who is going to get out of prison and rape again," said Rep. John Sinrud, R-Bozeman. "We don't need to throw good money after bad." ..........

An amendment from Sinrud that stripped a part of the bill that would have provided additional treatment for less dangerous sex offenders passed on a 51-49 vote. But much of the debate surrounding the amendment centered on whether the most dangerous sexual predators should receive treatment, which was originally part of the bill and was not changed by the amendment.

"The only place there ought to be reform is at the end of a rope," said Rep. Michael Lange, R-Billings. "If that sounds harsh, I don't care."

After the floor discussion, Sinrud clarified that he supports treatment for less dangerous sex offenders but doesn't think there is sufficient information to show it works for the most dangerous ones, who, he said on the floor, "need to be shot." Quoted from: "House alters sex offender bill to focus on punishment"

Seems like the focus here is on "money" and "punishment," but, what about "preventing crimes" so that there is NO next victim? Should these two remain in the legislture? Don't ask for my opinion! Yet, in the middle of this turmoil is a ray of light, hope, hope that there should not be a next victim:

"I don't know how anyone can argue that treatment doesn't work," said Bob Anez, a spokesman for the Department of Corrections. "It flies in the face of facts."

Give this man a cigar. Unfortunately, he is not the one who will vote for or against the bill, but he may in the next election!

5) by a Florida legislator, Sen. Nancy Argenziano, on the passage of the Lundsford Act in the Senate in April of 2001:

"The bill's sponsor, Sen. Nancy Argenziano, R-Dunellon, fought tears as she urged senators to vote for the bill named after the 9-year-old who lived in her district and told other sex offenders who prey on children that the bill was meant as a message to them: ``You better start fleeing the state because we're not going to put up with you anymore.'' Quoted From: Associated Press Release"

The bill was about increasing sentences for sex crimes. Well, who was she talking to, the ones who commit crimes, if so they are going to be brought back when caught anyway, so she must mean all other RSOs. Is this a "Get outa Dodge" comment? Strange how all Florida legislators IGNORE that, had they provided sex offender therapy for prison inmates the Lundsford murder, and others, may not have happened at all! Remember, Couey asked for help years before the Lundsford murder, and was laughed at, told go find it for yourself, when he could not afford it. Prior Governor stopped sex offender therapy in prison because of money. Hummmm, they have the money to lock people up for 25 plus years, after a crime is committed, but now enough money for therapy, before a crime is committed. What are their priorities?

4) an Oregon double header: by Rep. Kirk Pearson and Rep. John Ahern:

It now goes back to the Senate for concurrence. "We're going to take a good step in this state," said Rep. Kirk Pearson, R-Monroe. "Porn can be extremely harmful in the wrong hands."


Rep. John Ahern, R-Spokane, said he wants the longest possible community protection zone -- miles from any population center. "Get those dudes out in the middle of the wheat fields, and a lot of people like to do bird hunting," he said. "Do I make myself clear?" Both quoted from news: "Series of sex offender bills approved by Legislature." For the rest of the story.

I cannot pass up the opportunity, my favorite, is about the porn, in the right hands it is NOT DANGEROUS? Whoa! The bill he is speaking about covers "Child Porn," obviously the newspaper made a mistake. With that said, does the Oregon Legislature have an ethics committee? Given the comments seems to be made in the context of legislative business. Do I make myself clear?

3) by Georgia's Rep. Jerry Keen on the horendous HB-1059 Residency Restrictions which has already resulted in the death of one child:

"My intent personally is to make it so onerous on those that are convicted of these offenses . . . they will want to move to another state," Georgia House Majority Leader Jerry Keen (R), who sponsored the bill, told reporters. Quoted from: "Some curbs on sex offenders called inhumane" For the rest of the story.

2) by John Walsh of America's Most Wanted TV show:

Calif., July 25 People who molest children should have chips embedded in the rectum that would explode if they violate their parole, "America's Most Wanted" star John Walsh told a photographer for Fox and father of two at Summer TV Press Tour 2006 as a couple dozen speechless TV critics looked on. Quoted from: "Summer Press Tour, Day 16: An Explosive Interview" For the rest of the story.

1) by Sen. Hatch of Utah, on the Nancy Grace show 7-16-2006, speaking about the Adam Walsh Act which was not yet enacted on that date:

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH: Well, the bill really puts the screws to those who are sexual predators, and you know, sexual offenders. You know, we have ... Quoted from: CNN Transcript of Nancy Grace show 7-16-2006. For the rest of the story.

And I thought the purpose was to protect children? Guess I was wrong. eAdvocate.

Would-be bounty hunters not backed up by Rhode Island law

6-12-2009 Rhode Island:

PROVIDENCE — The two “bounty hunters” who tangled with the police and ended up under arrest after they plied their new trade in Woonsocket by allegedly forcing their way into a woman’s apartment and handcuffing her have a problem with state law, the attorney general’s office said Thursday.

The problem? There is no law authorizing people to act as bounty hunters in Rhode Island, according to Michael J. Healey, spokesman for Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch.

“They’re vigilantes,” Healey said. “There is folklore about what bounty hunters are and what they do. These guys are not bounty hunters, because there is no law regulating bounty hunters in Rhode Island. They are subject to the same laws as everybody else — one of which is not breaking into and forcing your way into somebody’s home without the tenant’s or owner’s consent.”

Brandon Johnson, 36, and Ronald Cervantes, 39, both of 620 Elm St., Woonsocket, surrendered to the Woonsocket police Tuesday and were charged with assault and breaking and entering.

Johnson and Cervantes told Woonsocket Detective Thomas Calouro that they decided to start a company to apprehend fugitives. Calouro said they went to an online source called beabountyhunter.com and paid $235, for which they received bounty hunter badges and identification cards.



Then, according to the police, they went to the home of Rebecca Ball, 18, of 90 Blackstone St., Woonsocket, took her into custody and delivered her to the headquarters of the Cumberland police, where she was wanted on a warrant for failing to appear in court on an assault charge.

Johnson was released on bail pending a future court appearance.

Prosecutors, however, sought to have Cervantes held without bail because of his past criminal record and that he has been charged with being a probation violator.

But Superior Court Magistrate Patrick Burke granted bail — setting it at $10,000 with surety — meaning Cervantes would have to post $1,000 in cash to gain his release. It was not known whether he made bail.

Healey said Cervantes was convicted in 1991 of sexual assault in Westerly, after which he received a five-year suspended sentence. In 2002, Cervantes was convicted of first-degree sexual assault, also a Westerly case, he said.

In the latter case, Cervantes pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 20 years, with 8 to serve. Tracey Zeckhausen, spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections, said Cervantes was released on April 5, 2008, when credited with good-conduct time.

The sexual-assault conviction marked him as a sex offender who is required to register with the police department that has jurisdiction over his house or apartment.

Woonsocket police Lt. Eugene Jalette said Cervantes has complied with the registration law.

His next court appearance is scheduled for June 23 in Superior Court.

As for Ball, the woman who was handcuffed and delivered to the Cumberland police, it turns out that the warrant on which she was sought required her to pay $93 after her case was adjudicated.

“That’s a minor fee,” Healey said. “The approach they took was just a bit out of proportion, to understate it.” ..Source.. by Thomas J. Morgan, Journal Staff Writer

New York County Outsources The Job Of Monitoring Sex Offenders

A question unanswered by any court: Can a governmental agency (County Agency here, etc.) authorize a non governmental company, entity, person/s, etc. authority to TRACK (stalk) and MONITOR (Harass) and ALLOW ACCESS TO PRIVATE DOCUMENTS of folks on state registries; affecting their constitutional rights?

Esp. when folks on registries have not personally approved the use of these WHATEVERS (companies, entities, private person/s, etc. [private non-deputized parties without legally approved background checks] and registrants have not given them authority to access private documents.)! Registry information and private documents are protected by constatutionally based state and federal law/s. Does this violate the 4th amendment? Is this legalized vigilantism?

8-25-2013 New York:

A suburban county on Long Island, N.Y., is taking a novel approach to monitoring sex offenders: It's giving the job to a victims' advocacy group.

The measure was approved unanimously earlier this year; lawmakers call it a cost-effective way to keep citizens safe. But a local lawyer calls it a "vigilante exercise," and convicted sex offenders are organizing to challenge the legislation.

'The Trackers'

___, 42, a convicted sex offender, is among those who object to the methods of Parents for Megan's Law, the advocacy group hired by Suffolk County.

___, who was convicted of sexual abuse two decades ago and is now married with two children, says one day last spring he met the people he calls "the trackers."

"I went and got coffee, and they pull up. It was a grey sedan, probably a Crown Victoria. They weren't law enforcement. But they had like a computer in the car," he says.

Two men in the car began questioning him. "I refused to give my name," ___ says. "I just continued to walk because I know the law, that I don't have to give my name."

He crossed the street and waited — and so did the two men.

"And then they left. So then I made a couple calls and said, 'Yeah, I believe I was encountered by the trackers' ... just putting other people on alert," he says. The other people, like ___, are registered sex offenders.

Legalizing Enforcement

The "trackers" are civilian employees of Parents for Megan's Law, a nonprofit organization getting close to $1 million a year to implement the law. Their role is to enforce what Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone calls the "toughest sex offender monitoring" law in the country.

"You can expect you will have an enhanced level of scrutiny unlike anything that exists anywhere else in our country," he says.

In February, the Suffolk County Legislature approved the bill unanimously. Some, like, Democrat Kate Browning, even joked about the law's desired outcome for sex offenders: "And if they don't like it, then they know where they can go." Someone else answered, "Another county."

Legislative devilment

7-5-2008 Georgia:

Plain legislative vigilantism!


IF EVER a slam-dunk request for an injunction was filed in a federal court it’s the one that has landed in U.S. District Court in Rome challenging the state’s new ban on exercising one’s religion.

The state’s overzealous legislators, who continue to use sledgehammers to try to kill fleas, apparently managed to slip in yet another new restriction on convicted sex offenders in their continual rewriting of a law that has already been slapped down repeatedly by the courts and contains elements (such as making it illegal to live with 1,000 feet of the state’s 150,000 school bus stops) that are obviously unenforceable — and on which many sheriffs and schools boards have refused to act as the “hit man.”

The latest addition: Not only can those who have served their time and paid their debt to society, yet will remain on the state’s official “outlaw” list for the rest of their lives, not be allowed to “work” for a church, as previously in the measure, now they also can’t “volunteer” for one.

Hence, one supposes, helping in a food kitchen, going on a mission trip, taking part in a Habitat for Humanity effort — even singing in a church choir — could result in being sent back to prison for from 10 to 30 years.

EVEN GRANTING that the legislative intent of protecting children against predatory repeat molesters is well meant, this won’t stand, can’t stand and reinforces the suspicion that the state’s lawmakers may have heard of the U.S. Constitution but apparently have never read it.

Police send letters to sex offenders

6-7-2008 Nebraska:

There are three types of vigilantism, this is vigilantism by lawmakers! In addition, they corrupt the meaning of due process.

One Fremont man will be forced to move if a proposed new ordinance restricting how close to schools and licensed child care facilities certain sex offenders can live is passed.

Another three live within the 500-foot limit, but moved in before the July 1, 2006, cutoff date and will be allowed to remain in their homes.

Letters from the Fremont Police Department were mailed Thursday to all 11 Level 3 sex offenders living within the city informing them of the proposed ordinance and the effect it might have on them.

Level 3 sex offenders are those determined to be at a high risk to re-offend. They must register any new address within five business days of the move with the sheriff.

Lt. Jeff Elliott said 10 of the 11 Level 3 sex offenders residing in the city would be considered sexual predators by the ordinance.

The ordinance prohibits sex offenders deemed to be sexual predators from living within 500 feet of schools or child care facilities. A sexual predator is defined by the ordinance as “an individual who is required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act, who has been classified as Level 3 because of a high risk of recidivism as determined by the Nebraska State Patrol and who has victimized a person 18 years of age or younger.”

The 500-foot measurement starts at the outer property line of the residence to the outer property line of the school or child care facility.

“We want these individuals to be aware this ordinance may become law,” Elliott said. “We want to give them an opportunity to comply if it passes. Technically, once the law passes, they are in violation.”

He said contacting and making an offender in violation move will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The crime is an arrestable misdemeanor offense and carries a penalty of up to a $1,000 fine and/or up to 90 days in jail if convicted.

Currently, there are 61 licensed child care centers in Fremont plus all of the public and private schools in town.

There must be three readings at city council meetings before council members would vote on it. There has been one reading so far and the next reading will take place at the June 10 regular Fremont City Council meeting. The final reading and a council vote on the ordinance is planned for June 24.

If passed, the ordinance would be retroactive to July 1, 2006. The only exceptions would be if the sex offender was in a correctional or treatment facility run by the state or political subdivision or child care facility was established after the sex offender moved into the neighborhood.

“We are hoping anyone presently in an area of violation will comply prior to any actions being taken,” Elliott said. “We’re using several methods, including government agencies, to determine the distance.”

If any of the three sexual predators who are currently grandfathered in to their current residences were to move within city limits, they, too, would have to abide by the ordinance if passed. So would any new sexual predators who might move into the city limits.

“We suggest contacting our office prior to selecting a new residence so we can assist in determining if the new residence is in violation,” Elliott said. ..News Source.. by Russ Krebs, Fremont Tribune

Earlier article:

Offender auto plates are a bad idea

3-11-2008 California:

Maldonado’s plan is open to vigilantism and impossible to enforce

We have no doubt that state Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, is sincerely motivated by a desire to protect children, but his proposal to require special license plates for convicted sex offenders is ill-advised and, because it could give children a false sense of security, possibly even dangerous.

We also take issue with Maldonado’s reasoning. He believes that because sex offenders often use their vehicles as instruments of crime they should be singled out for special treatment.

Applying that same logic, shouldn’t we require OFENDER plates for repeat drunken drivers? Drive-by shooters? Hit-and-run drivers?

As Maldonado points out, sexual abuse has devastating lifelong consequences for victims and their families. We respectfully point out that having a child killed or maimed by a drunken driver is also devastating. If we’re going to go down this road to protect the public— especially our children—shouldn’t we apply this concept equally?

The answer is no, we shouldn’t apply it at all because there are too many problems with a proposal such as Maldonado’s.



Here are some:

• The law would be impossible to enforce. What’s to stop a sex offender from borrowing a car or, for that matter, from switching license plates? Children —and adults, for that matter—could be lulled into thinking drivers pose no danger because they don’t have special plates, when they are indeed convicted sex offenders.

• It would encourage vigilantism. The law would include a provision punishing people who harass sex offenders because of the plates. Even so, some would no doubt see it as an invitation to vandalize the car and/or harass or harm the driver.

• Because the majority of sex offenses are committed by a friend or relative of the victim—not by a stranger—the law would not be effective in preventing most cases.

Unfortunately, California already has one law cracking down on sex offenders that’s proven ineffective and impossible to enforce. Jessica’s Law, passed by California voters in 2006, put more restrictions on where sex offenders can live and, as a result, experts say that more sex offenders are homeless, making them harder to track and a greater danger to the public.

Also, a provision requiring global-positioning devices for ex-offenders will cost millions of dollars — but it’s unclear who has to foot the bill.

Given the state’s financial mess, we don’t need another law that will wind up costing more money to achieve questionable results.

If there is money available, let’s spend it on educating children on how to protect themselves, on counseling victims of sexual abuse—so they don’t grow up to become abusers themselves —and on enforcing laws already on the books, rather than passing a new law that would be ineffectual at best and harmful at worst. ..more.. Editorial Opinion of The Tribune