Mission Statement

This is a blog about reentry into society for persons released from prison and the many difficulties and barriers they face. The writings contained in this blog come from personal experience and they are intended to put out information from the real life adventures I have come up against with navigating my reentry into society. The blog welcomes submissions from anyone who is or has gone through reentry after prison as well as from any authorities, organizations, etc. with information that would be help for prisoners with their reentry to society after incarceration.

Monday, August 30, 2010

Reaching Out

By Steve Gordon

Saturday morning, August 28, 2010, I had a 15 minute meeting with US Congressman Patrick Murphy (8th District) in his Bristol office. I talked with him about my concerns for ex-offender employment from my experiences in trying to find a job since my release from state prison after 10 years in May, 2010. He listened and we discussed some specifics.

I appreciate his availability to meet with the people in his district and I am sure there are many concerns beyond my specific problems. I know the president talks about job programs to put America back to work. I see these as looking to corporate America, but from where I sit it does not appear corporate America is ready to step in on the ex-offender employment issue.

There has been openings in the Pennsylvania Career Link (Bristol office) which I have applied for that would give me employment, but beyond that perhaps I could put myself in a position to help other ex-offenders who will go through what I am going through.

Recently I wrote to three local state representatives (Bernie O'Neill, Frank Farry, Scott Petri), two local state senators (Robert Tomlinson and Stewart Greenleaf) and the governors office. Only Senator Greenleaf responded saying he recognized my concerns. Here is what he wrote in part in that Aug. 16 letter:

     "Thank you for contacting my office about ex-offender employment. I agree that we need to do more to connect ex-offenders with job opportunities and your suggestion that employment offices have individuals who specialize in finding jobs for ex-offenders is a good one. I introduced Senate Bill 1198 to improve the State's re-entry programs. I would like to see educational and vocational training in prison better coordinated with job opportunities available upon release from prison. I would also like to see the Department of Corrections and the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole make better use of community and faith-based organizations in facilitating the successful re-entry of ex-offenders."

I don't expect miracles or someone to knock on my door tomorrow and offer me some great well compensating job. I am willing to take whatever job I am capable of doing, but if I can get a job where I can help someone else who will be where I am, that would be the best scenario. How much more comfortable would an ex-offender be going into an employment office and speaking to someone who has been where he has been and walked the path he has walked and show that there is hope and be able to provide some help?

That's all I have for today.  Stay tuned for potential undates.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Megan's Law

By Steve Gordon

Yes, my crime involved sex offenses. It was against my wife of 23 years. It was wrong and she or anyone does not deserve to be a victim of that. I will make no excuses nor get into the nature or circumstances of it. That said, Megan's Laws around the country, at least in Pennsylvania, are too generalized.

I am not trying to justify anything for myself or anyone, but the basis of these registration laws is to protect the children and to prepare the community for the return of a sex offender to society. I get that and there are sex offenders who need to be tracked and watched. I did the Sex Offender Program in prison and it was interesting that the staff group leader told my group before I disclosed that he did not view my offense as a sex offense.

My position is that just being an ex-offender is a "collateral consequence" as the lawyers for the state put it in their brief against the pro se filing I made. Registration is a punishment to many, clear and simple. For my type of offense and other kinds of specific sex offenses, we are not a danger to society, to the children, and the community needs no preparation for our return from prison.

Specific to my case is that trial court did not follow the law. It did not order an assessment before my sentencing as the law requires and it did not inform me of my registration requirement, also specifically stated in Pennsylvania's Megan's Law in as per law. Let me make it easy and provide a copy of my complaint:

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA




Steven R. Gordon
Petitioner


Vs.                                                                                           NO. 477 MD 2010

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ,
Pennsylvania State Police
Respondents



AMENDED PETITION FOR REVIEW FOR MANDAMUS RELIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF ABOVE SAID COURT:

AND NOW comes Steven R. Gordon, pro se petitioner, who asks this Honorable Court to exempt him from any/all Megan’s Law registration with the Pennsylvania State Police and related subsequent notifications, public postings, etc. as a case of first impression and represents:

Factual and Procedural History

1. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of a minimum of 60 months and a maximum of 120 months on December 8, 2000 in CCP Bucks County with no stipulations for a domestic offense in the confines of the marital home.



2. While Petitioner’s sentencing sheet (See Exhibit ‘A’) shows Aggravated Assault, his Pa. DOC status sheet lists Criminal Attempt Rape (See Exhibit ‘B’).



3. At Petitioner’s sentencing trial court made no mention of Megan’s Law and the required registration and notification requirements thereof as per 42 Pa. C.S.A. §9795.4.



4. On April 12, 2010 Petitioner was called to the Records Office at SCI-Cresson by xxxxxxxxxx, Records Specialist II, to sign Megan’s Law registration papers for the Pennsylvania State Police.


5. Petitioner’s failure to sign and register an address would have potentially affected his release on May 8, 20101 and potentially subjected him to felony charges for not registering as a sex offender.1

            1 There is an outstanding time credit issue in the PA Supreme Court for two days unlawful incarceration as Bucks County declined to act on Petitioner’s filings twice to correct the error and Petitioner should have been released on May 6, 2010.

Issue For Review

6. Whether the Pa. DOC (Respondent) has the authority to impose statutory provisions upon prisoners for Megan’s Law registration without a legal order from the trial court on sex offenses.
Jurisdiction

7. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §761.
Argument

8. Petitioner contends that the DOC erred in having him sign to register an address, etc. for Megan’s Law registration before his release on completion of his sentence and further has no authority to have any prisoner sign for Megan’s Law registration without an order from trial court.

9. Megan’s Law, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §9795.4(e), states in part (emphasis added):


“Following conviction, but before sentencing, the court must order a person convicted of a sexually violent offense to undergo an assessment by the Sexual Offender Assessment Board. This order is required to be sent to the Board within 10 days from the date of conviction.”

10. There also was no Pre-sentence Report by trial court and the only assessment that was done was a psychiatric evaluation. (See Exhibit ‘C’)

11. Megan’s Law, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §9795.4(a)(b) also states in part:


“The court is also required to advise the offender of his requirement to register his address with the Pennsylvania State Police.”

12. As per ’s 9 & 12 above, trial court did not comply with the rules as set forth and required at the time of sentencing, or at any other time. Comm. V Baird, 856 A.2d 114 Super. 2004. (See Exhibit ‘D’)

13. Further, Petitioner was sentenced under guidelines for Aggravated Assault and trial judge declined to impose a second consecutive sentence requested by the prosecutor for the sexual assault. (See Exhibit ‘E’)

14. In the notes of Decisions under 42 Pa. C.S.A. §9795.4, it states in part:


“An offender must show a “likelihood of engaging in such a sexual offense in the future.” Comm. V Howe, 842 A.2d 436 Super. 2004

15. On January 2, 2001 at a hearing for sentence reconsideration, trial judge said in part:


”We do not know under the circumstances and we think it is substantially unlikely…those acts you took…will ever happen again.”


16. Petitioner also avers that Megan’s Law as it exists today is too general and further requirements of registration with notification to the community, employer, vehicle registration, etc. constitutes a significant imposition that threatens employment and other opportunities of persons who may not truly pose a risk to the public. Comm. V Maldonado, 838 A.2d 710, 576 Pa. 101, Sup. 2003.

17. In Comm. V Williams I, 557 Pa. At 311, 733, A.2d at 607, it says, “Ones livelihood, domestic tranquility and personal relationships are unquestionably put in jeopardy.

18. Petitioner avers that by trial courts statement, he does not pose a threat to public safety and thus Megan’s Law registration, etc. should not apply, especially considering that Petitioner’s victim was an adult (his ex-wife of 23 years) and not a random act committed upon a stranger, or a child.

19. Megan’s Law was originally enacted to protect children and Petitioner’s offense was not one that victimized a minor.

20. Megan’s Law application to Petitioner therefore is arbitrary and ambiguous based on impermissible factors and it is wholey irrational and unreasonable to profile all released offenders with a low risk of offending as Justice Department statistics confirm. (See Exhibit ‘F’).

21. Since Petitioner’s offence on May 6, 2000, Megan’s Law has been revised ex post facto changing registration requirements and the period of time for registration.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this Honorable Court will exempt him from any and all Megan’s Law and subsequent registration by the facts shown herein with errors by trial court and the general application to low risk sex offenders, bar the Pennsylvania DOC from registering sex offenders without court ordered applications and grant an immediate temporary injunction on said registration of Petitioner.

DATE: June 15, 2010
*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

Briefs were submitted and now I wait for the decision. As I said, a favorable ruling is not expected even as it is the common sense thing. I did this not only for me but for those behind me in the system to try and correct a flaw in the system. At best I am hoping for a dissenting opinion which would cause a written opinion to be issued. Then perhaps someone with more legal knowledge than I can pick up from there and carry on.

If you read my original post about reentry not being a picnic you may get a better feel for where I am at with this. Here is a question: How is the community going to prepare for a person with an offense like mine or other offenses such as a 16 or 17-year-old in a consentual relationship with an older person? I am not condoning or condemning that kind of relationship, I am just questioning how the community will prepare for someone with an offense of that type. I have been living in this community for five months now and people wave to me when they walk, ride a bike or drive by if I am outside and they wave when I ride my bike or drive through the neighborhood. I guess they don't feel threatened?

However I am labeled and my picture is on the Internet for anyone to see and the lawyers argue that I am not being punished in that I cannot even find entry level work and that it is a "collateral consequence." As for the courts failure to do it's part the lawyers argue that the court does not have to say the "magic words," to provide the colloquy it is required to do by law.

I counter that they cannot have the law both ways and uphold the registration part and ignore the colloquy part. "Magic words?" Are they serious? My purpose to to bring to light the generality in classifiying not just sex offenders, but all offenders. Parole is supposed to be decided on a case-by-case basis, so should any "collateral consequences."

I will keep you posted.
Enhanced by Zemanta