<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Arizona &#8211; NCRSOL</title>
	<atom:link href="https://ncrsol.org/tag/arizona/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://ncrsol.org</link>
	<description>Fighting for registered citizens and families</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 May 2023 15:49:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	

 
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">165103099</site>	<item>
		<title>Corrupting legacy of a flawed study published by Psychology Today</title>
		<link>https://ncrsol.org/2023/05/corrupting-legacy-of-a-flawed-study-published-by-psychology-today/</link>
					<comments>https://ncrsol.org/2023/05/corrupting-legacy-of-a-flawed-study-published-by-psychology-today/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robin Vander Wall]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2023 15:48:31 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ALI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arsol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice ginsberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice kennedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice souter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[model penal code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sex crime statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sex offense registries]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ncrsol.org/?p=4738</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By JOHN COVERT . . . Based on a false premise, Justice Anthony Kennedy asserted in the case of Smith v Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) [Please Note: the correct]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By JOHN COVERT . . . Based on a false premise, Justice Anthony Kennedy asserted in the case of <em>Smith v Doe,</em> 538 U.S. 84 (2003) [<strong>Please Note</strong>: the correct case is <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/536/24/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>McKune v Lile</em></a>, 536 U.S. 24 (2002)] that “the risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders is frightening and high,” as high as 80% for those who are untreated. This, he contended, made it vital that the public be able to identify these individuals in the interest of public safety.</p>
<p>Justice Kennedy’s statements were wrong then and they are wrong now. They were based on an article in a lay publication, <em>Psychology Today</em>, not a peer-reviewed journal, that was written by a sex offender counselor, not a researcher, who earned his living selling his counseling program to prisons. The author has since disavowed these numbers and said they were never meant to be used as a basis for any type of judicial ruling.</p>
<div id="attachment_262701" class="wp-caption alignleft">
<p><a href="https://azcapitoltimes.com/files/2023/05/Covert-rotated-e1684448403644.jpg" data-uw-rm-brl="false"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-262701" src="https://azcapitoltimes.com/files/2023/05/Covert-rotated-e1684448403644.jpg" alt="sex offenders, Arizonans for Rational Sex Offense Laws" width="200" height="267" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-262701" data-uw-rm-ima-original="sex offenders, arizonans for rational sex offense laws" /></a></p>
<p id="caption-attachment-262701" class="wp-caption-text">John Covert</p>
</div>
<p>It is now clear, based on decades of data, that those who have committed sexual offenses rarely recidivate. Indeed, while the recidivism rate for drug offenses exceeds 80%, study after study finds the three-year recidivism rate for people who commit sex offenses to be 3.5%, much lower than that claimed by Justice Kennedy. This low recidivism rate is in line with the finding that the vast majority of sexual offenses — as high as 95% — are committed by people who are first-time offenders and thus are not on the registry at all.</p>
<p>University of Miami law professor Tamara Rice Lave found an Arizona state government analysis showing only 2.4% of the 209 individuals released in 2001 had committed a new sex offense within the next three years. ”[T]he … belief that sex offenders have a high rate of reoffending is not supported by the evidence,” she concluded.</p>
<p>Professor Ira Ellman, retired law professor at ASU, points out: “Many assume that most registrants committed violent rapes or molested children, but they would be wrong.” In fact, sex offense registries sweep in individuals with vastly different backgrounds who pose vastly different levels of risk. Individuals have been placed on the registry for such acts as teenagers having consensual sex, public urination, or sexting.</p>
<p>Ellman said “if the registry’s main purpose is to let us monitor and warn people about those who committed violent, coercive, or exploitative contact sex offenses, we dilute its potential usefulness when we fill it up with people who never did any of those things.”</p>
<p>Several of the Supreme Court justices in Doe wrote separately.</p>
<p>Justice David Souter wrote, “The fact that the [registration process] uses past crime as the touchstone, probably sweeping in a significant number of people who pose no real threat to the community, serves to feed suspicion that something more than regulation of safety is going on; when a legislature uses prior convictions to impose burdens that outpace the law’s stated civil aims, there is room for serious argument that the ulterior purpose is to revisit past crimes, not prevent future ones.”</p>
<p>Justice Stevens noted that registrants and their families justifiably live in fear of vigilante justice. They have experienced “profound humiliation and isolation as a result of the reaction of those notified. Employment and employment opportunities have been jeopardized or lost. Housing and housing opportunities have suffered a similar fate. Family and other personal relationships have been destroyed or severely strained. Retribution has been visited by private unlawful violence and threats.”</p>
<p>The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg complained that the registry completely ignores the possibility of rehabilitation. “Offenders cannot shorten their registration or notification period, even on the clearest demonstration of rehabilitation or conclusive proof of physical incapacitation,” Ginsberg wrote. “However plain it may be that a former sex offender poses no threat of recidivism he will remain subject to long-term monitoring and inescapable humiliation.”</p>
<p>The American Law Institute, authors of the Model Penal Code, an independent organization consisting of thousands of lawyers, judges and scholars, recently concluded a nearly ten-year process to help guide states in updating their laws, making positive recommendations for reform to the sex offender registry.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court’s decision 20 years ago has led states to implement increasingly onerous laws that feed the public’s fear of people who commit sexual offenses while at the same time doing nothing to enhance public safety. Decades of data show unequivocally that the sex offender registry is a failed social experiment. It’s time for a new paradigm in sex offender policies, one that considers real studies by real scientists.</p>
<p><em>John Covert is with Arizonans for Rational Sex Offense Laws, ARSOL</em></p>
<p><strong><em>SOURCE: <a href="https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2023/05/18/data-suggest-changes-for-sex-offense-policies/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Arizona Capitol Times</a> </em></strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ncrsol.org/2023/05/corrupting-legacy-of-a-flawed-study-published-by-psychology-today/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">4738</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>GOP bill would add all low-risk sex offenders to Arizona’s online registry</title>
		<link>https://ncrsol.org/2023/04/gop-bill-would-add-all-low-risk-sex-offenders-to-arizonas-online-registry/</link>
					<comments>https://ncrsol.org/2023/04/gop-bill-would-add-all-low-risk-sex-offenders-to-arizonas-online-registry/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dwayne Daughtry]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 2023 11:45:27 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[national News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[low risk]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ncrsol.org/?p=4662</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[All low-risk sex offenders would be required to be listed on the sex offender registry under a Republican proposal that critics say is retroactive and would take away the discretion]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All low-risk sex offenders would be required to be listed on the sex offender registry under a Republican proposal that critics say is retroactive and would take away the discretion of law enforcement to review risk assessments.</p>
<p>Currently, the sex offender registry website must include any offender whose risk assessment has been determined to be a Level Two or Level Three, or any person assessed to be a Level One offender and whose victim was under 12 years old.</p>
<p>The proposed law, <a href="https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/79266?SessionId=127" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Senate Bill 1583</a> would punish Level One offenders who were 18 years or older at the time of the offense and were sentenced for a dangerous crime against children on or after August 9, 2017.</p>
<p>“Pedophiles, particularly those who have committed a crime against a child, know how to circumvent are not going to be forthcoming with this information. Clearly, they have no boundaries, by putting this on the sex offender website, we are giving the public accurate and truthful information,” Kayleigh Kozak, a sexual assault survivor, said at a March 7 Senate Judiciary Committee meeting.</p>
<p>The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Sine Kerr, R-Buckeye, explained that information about sex offenders is already open to the public and can be acquired at the court for a fee.</p>
<p>Victims and their families urged lawmakers to pass the measure.</p>
<p>“The sex offender registry over the last decade has been reverted from its original proper intent and now is dangerously ineffective for a certain kind of dangerous sex offender,” Dan Lundell, a parent of a victim, told the House Judiciary Committee on March 29.</p>
<p>Kerr explained that the risk assessment conducted to distinguish the level of sex offenders is 19 questions long, and offenders are assigned points based on their answers. She claimed that an offender acquires 0 points if they commit a sexual offense against a female, indicating that they are less of a risk to society.</p>
<div class="no-padding">
<div class="no-padding story-top-panel">
<div class="row no-padding the-equalizer">
<div id="article-body-text" class="columns small-12 article-body-text">
<p>“I can’t imagine being someone that’s 25 now who committed an offense that is living working, and now has to be on a website and have things mailed out about them in their neighborhood,” attorney Katherine Gipson-McLean, a member of Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, said when the bill was considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 16.</p>
<p>She also brought up situations of things that happen in high school like a “senior simply asks a freshman to have sex with him.” Such offenses would be included in this bill.</p>
<p>“Deplorable things that happen in high school, that shouldn’t mean the offenders’ lives should be ruined for the rest of their lives. They should be taught,” Sen. Mitzi Epstein, D-Tempe, said.</p>
<p>SB1583 was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on March 29 along party lines, with Republicans in support and Democrats opposed. It will proceed next to the full House of Representatives for consideration.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This report was first published by the <a href="https://www.azmirror.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Arizona Mirror</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ncrsol.org/2023/04/gop-bill-would-add-all-low-risk-sex-offenders-to-arizonas-online-registry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">4662</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arizona Senate Committees Pass Two Bills in GOP Push to Criminalize Drag and Place on Sex Offender Registry</title>
		<link>https://ncrsol.org/2023/03/arizona-senate-committees-pass-two-bills-in-gop-push-to-criminalize-drag-and-place-on-sex-offender-registry/</link>
					<comments>https://ncrsol.org/2023/03/arizona-senate-committees-pass-two-bills-in-gop-push-to-criminalize-drag-and-place-on-sex-offender-registry/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dwayne Daughtry]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2023 11:45:54 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[national News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drag]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sex offender registry]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ncrsol.org/?p=4655</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[A group of Republican state lawmakers focused on attacking LGBTQ Arizonans passed two bills that would criminalize drag shows, businesses that host them, and parents who take their children to]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A group of Republican state lawmakers focused on attacking LGBTQ Arizonans passed two bills that would criminalize drag shows, businesses that host them, and parents who take their children to see them.</p>
<p><a href="https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/SB1698/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB 1698,</a> sponsored by Senator Justine Wadsack, would make it a felony for parents to take their child to a drag show. The parents would have to register as sex offenders, too. <a href="https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/SB1698/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB 1030,</a> sponsored by state Senator Anthony Kern, would make it a felony for some businesses to host drag shows.</p>
<p>Republicans in the Arizona Senate can’t decide if they want to label drag performers as sex workers or sex offenders. So, why not both?</p>
<p>SB 1698 would add drag shows to a state law about &#8220;dangerous crimes against children.&#8221; The bill defines drag shows as adult-oriented performances and compares them to bestiality, child sex trafficking, second-degree murder, and sexual assault.</p>
<p>Under the proposal, adults who allow children to see drag shows could receive prison terms of five years and be <span style="text-decoration: underline;">required to register as sex offenders</span>.</p>
<p>Wadsack said the idea for the bill came from conversations she had with the Log Cabin Republicans and Gays Against Groomers, two gay yet anti-trans conservative groups.</p>
<p>By a 3-1 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill on February 16. Its next step could be a vote by the full Senate.</p>
<p>Kern, Wadsack, and fellow Republican Senator Wendy Rogers voted to advance the bill. Democratic Senator Anna Hernandez cast the lone vote against it.</p>
<p>Republican Senator John Kavanagh did not vote. Democratic Senators Christine Marsh and Mitzi Epstein also did not vote. Why not? Because Kern, the committee chair, asked lawmakers to leave the hearing in shifts for lunch so members could continue considering legislation on the agenda. Kavanagh, Marsh, and Epstein were the first to leave, along with several people in the audience scheduled to testify.</p>
<p>Then, the bill passed with virtually no testimony or discussion in mere minutes.</p>
<p>SB 1030 would require permits for drag shows and zone businesses that host them as an “adult-oriented business,&#8221; citing the shows as “sexually explicit.” The bill lumps drag shows in the same category as cabaret, adult entertainment, and even sex work.</p>
<p>Under the proposal, drag queens wouldn’t be allowed within a quarter-mile of any school or playground.</p>
<p>By a 5-3 vote, the Senate Government Committee passed the bill on February 16, and it can now be considered by the full Senate. Wadsack, Rogers, and fellow Republican Senators David Farnsworth, Janae Shamp, and Jake Hoffman voted to advance the bill. Democratic Senators Juan Mendez, Priya Sundareshan, and Eva Diaz voted against it.</p>
<p>The proposal defines a drag show as one in which drag performers “engage in singing, dancing, or a monologue or skit in order to entertain an audience of two or more people.” Critics of the legislation said the broad definition was problematic.</p>
<p>“The definition of drag shows doesn’t actually say anything about sexually explicit content. This bill would include a lot of things that aren’t even drag,” Jeanne Woodbury, interim executive director for Equality Arizona, told <i>Phoenix New Times.</i> “That creates a huge problem that isn’t within the scope of actual adult-oriented businesses.”</p>
<p>Business owners who host drag shows are worried that the bill threatens their livelihoods.</p>
<p>“Bars like mine are only open to people over 21 and are already highly regulated,” said Jeff Parales, owner of Kobalt in Midtown. “This new regulation will put an undue burden on businesses like mine.”</p>
<p>Parales said that labeling all drag queens as sexually explicit is a “red herring.” The bill is similar to “what they’re doing in Communist China and totalitarian regimes like Iran,” he said.</p>
<p>Hoffman, the committee chair, interrupted Parales’ testimony. “In those countries, they throw homosexuals off of roofs and kill them. You are out of order. If you continue speaking, you will be removed,” Hoffman said.</p>
<p>Hoffman then admitted that he has never been to a drag show.</p>
<div class="fdn-inline-connection fdn-inline-connection-slideshow uk-card uk-card-default uk-padding-small uk-flex uk-flex-column uk-margin">
<div class="fdn-inline-connection-title-block">Parales pointed out that drag entertainers help raise money for charities and nonprofits in Phoenix and statewide.</p>
<p>“Instead of focusing on real issues like funding education, you’ve insisted on targeting an already marginalized community,” he said. “Your rhetoric has led to mass shootings and attacks at small businesses like mine and the people who go to them.”</p>
<p>Lydia Burton, a gay mother from Phoenix, has been taking her 8-year-old daughter to drag story hour at a public library since the child was in preschool.</p>
<p>“Because of drag, my child has learned to be brave and kind, colorful and creative, and that art has purpose,” Burton testified. “Drag is not defined by adult content. Drag is art. Drag is family. Drag is our church.”</p>
<p>Burton reminded the committee that, last year, Arizona Republicans passed a parental bill of rights that then-Governor Doug Ducey signed into law. The measure states that parenting decisions are “exclusively reserved to a parent of a minor child without obstruction or interference from this state.”</p>
<p>“Whether you understand my family and my culture is not relevant,” Burton said. “We should all agree that I should parent my child in accordance with my values. I have the right to direct the upbringing of my child, and the government shall not infringe on that.”</p>
<p>Elijah Watson, a local Democratic activist with Keep Arizona Blue, called the bill a clear and divisive attack against queer people and drag performers by subjecting drag shows to the same prohibitions as strip clubs.</p>
<p>“It perpetuates the myth that has been pushed this legislative session by Republicans that drag is a form of sexual entertainment and that drag is an art form that promotes pedophilia and the grooming of children,” Watson said. “It does not. To say that this bill is offensive is an understatement because it is very clearly discriminatory.”</p>
<p>Nobody testified in support of the bill.</p></div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ncrsol.org/2023/03/arizona-senate-committees-pass-two-bills-in-gop-push-to-criminalize-drag-and-place-on-sex-offender-registry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">4655</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is Investigating a School Sexting Incident the Same as Possessing Child Porn? A Judge Says No.</title>
		<link>https://ncrsol.org/2023/03/is-investigating-a-school-sexting-incident-the-same-as-possessing-child-porn-a-judge-says-no/</link>
					<comments>https://ncrsol.org/2023/03/is-investigating-a-school-sexting-incident-the-same-as-possessing-child-porn-a-judge-says-no/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dwayne Daughtry]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2023 18:10:54 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[national News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colorado]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plea deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prosecutors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sixth amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unconstitutional]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ncrsol.org/?p=4612</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Bradley Bass&#8217; case in Colorado says a lot about just how powerful prosecutors are. BILLY BINION &#8212; A Colorado school administrator will no longer face child pornography charges for investigating a student]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2 class="entry-subtitle" style="text-align: center;">Bradley Bass&#8217; case in Colorado says a lot about just how powerful prosecutors are.</h2>
<p><a class="author url fn" title="Posts by Billy Binion" href="https://reason.com/people/billy-binion/" rel="author">BILLY BINION</a> &#8212; A Colorado school administrator will no longer face child pornography charges for investigating a student sexting incident, a local judge ruled late last month, ending a legal odyssey that raised broader questions about prosecutorial discretion, overcriminalization, law enforcement accountability, and coercive plea bargaining.</p>
<p>Bradley Bass of Brush, Colorado, was facing up to 12 years in prison, a spot on the sex offender registry, and an end to his career. But that potential punishment never fit the alleged crime, particularly when considering that no one involved in the case, including the prosecution, <a href="https://reason.com/2022/12/09/this-principal-investigated-a-sexting-incident-so-the-police-charged-him-with-possessing-child-porn/">posited Bass meant any harm</a> when he conducted a probe in accordance with school board policy.</p>
<p>There was &#8220;no evidence of deceit or concealment,&#8221; <a href="https://coloradosun.com/2023/01/25/bradley-bass-charges-dismissed-brush-teen-sexting/">wrote</a> Morgan County District Court Judge Charles M. Hobbs, and &#8220;no improper motive.&#8221; That was clear from the start of the case, though it didn&#8217;t deter prosecutors.</p>
<p>Last year, Bass learned that explicit images of a female student were circulating among male students. School Resource Officer (SRO) Jared Barham first received that tip; he was temporarily working nights and declined to investigate or share the information with other officers.</p>
<p>So Bass investigated the complaint. &#8220;The school administration prioritized this as a high-priority matter, because their concerns are [the] best interests of the students,&#8221; says Michael Faye, who represented Bass. &#8220;He basically did the officer&#8217;s work for him.&#8221;</p>
<p>Bass&#8217; probe turned up risqué pictures saved in Snapchat, a photo-sharing app where images typically disappear after receipt. To collect evidence, he took pictures of the photos on his work cellphone, uploaded them to a school server, and <a href="https://coloradosun.com/2022/12/09/brush-student-sexting-principal/">says</a> he told the boys to delete the images. A forensic investigation concluded that Bass did not access the photos after the fact, and the female student in question <a href="https://coloradosun.com/2022/11/21/brush-eastern-colorado-sexting-hearing/">maintained</a> that Bass did nothing wrong.</p>
<p>He was arrested, booked at the Morgan County Detention Center, and charged with four counts of sexual exploitation of a child anyway. There&#8217;s an interesting carve-out to that <a href="https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2016/title-18/article-6/part-4/section-18-6-403">law</a>: It &#8220;does not apply to peace officers or court personnel in the performance of their official duties.&#8221; Put differently, Barham opted not to do his job, so Bass was arrested for doing it for him. It wasn&#8217;t necessarily an outlier moment. &#8220;We had testimony at the hearing that this SRO had multiple times stated to different teachers, &#8216;Hey, it&#8217;s easier if you guys do this kind of stuff. If I get involved, it takes it up a notch, and it&#8217;s easier if I come in after the fact,'&#8221; says Faye. &#8220;So that was kind of the underlying premise here.&#8221;</p>
<p>At its core, the case around Bass was more about prosecutorial discretion than it was about child pornography. The law the government used to prosecute Bass has an immunity statute, which provides that someone acting in accordance with school board policies is protected from civil and criminal prosecution. This would seem a fairly clear-cut example of that.</p>
<p>Prosecutors disagree. &#8220;From the beginning and it still troubles me now: We had a school administrator that knowingly kept nude images of a juvenile student on his phone,&#8221; 13th Judicial District Attorney Travis Sides <a href="https://coloradosun.com/2023/01/25/bradley-bass-charges-dismissed-brush-teen-sexting/">told</a> <em>The Colorado Sun</em>. &#8220;So in other words, he could pull up that image whenever he wanted to, anytime a day or night.&#8221;</p>
<article class="rcom-standard-article post-8221700 post type-post status-publish format-standard has-post-thumbnail hentry category-crime category-criminal-justice category-criminal-law category-education category-law category-law-enforcement category-overcriminalization category-police category-police-in-schools category-pornography category-sex-crimes category-sex-offender-registry category-students tag-children tag-colorado tag-courts tag-prosecutors">
<div class="entry-content">
<p>Perhaps it should matter to Sides that forensics concluded Bass never pulled up the images and only took them in the absence of the school police officer doing his job. And perhaps it <em>did</em> matter to the government, despite their public statements. Had Hobbs not thrown out the case in accordance with the law, the government had offered Bass a &#8220;deal&#8221;: Plead guilty to obstructing justice, and the case would go away.</p>
<p>That may sound like a nice bargain. Consider, however, what the implication is: Bass would face up to 12 years in prison and a slew of other life-altering consequences for <a href="https://reason.com/2021/07/09/prosecutors-plea-bargaining-drugs-maricopa-county-allister-adel-aclu/">exercising his Sixth Amendment right to trial</a> after the government made clear with its deal that such a severe punishment was not necessary. That sort of <a href="https://reason.com/2021/12/22/rogel-aguilera-mederos-rejected-a-plea-deal-so-he-got-110-years-in-prison/">over-charging</a> is common and gives prosecutors leverage to coerce guilty pleas—even from people who <a href="https://reason.com/2022/07/04/the-founders-loved-jury-trials-almost-no-one-gets-one-anymore/">aren&#8217;t guilty</a>.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a practice some say is unconstitutional. In Maricopa County, Arizona, for instance, defendants are given a plea deal and told in fine print that they will face significantly more time behind bars if they merely want to review the state&#8217;s evidence against them or attend a preliminary hearing. One such defendant, Michael Calhoun, was <a href="https://reason.com/2021/07/09/prosecutors-plea-bargaining-drugs-maricopa-county-allister-adel-aclu/">given</a> a nine-year plea deal offer for selling about $20 worth of drugs and told that if he did not accept it outright, he would face a &#8220;substantially harsher&#8221; fate. He <a href="https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/final_maricopa_edc_complaint_07.07.2021.pdf">sued</a> in 2021, challenging the legality of that approach.</p>
<p>Bass may relate more with another defendant in Maricopa County, Levonta Barker, who received a plea deal offer for aggravated assault and kidnapping. Barker, too, was told that reviewing the evidence or attending a probable cause hearing would cost him. That&#8217;s unfortunate for many reasons, most notably because he was innocent—something the Maricopa County Attorney&#8217;s Office was forced to admit after Barker had already spent a month in jail.</p>
<p>With such a wide separation between plea deals and the punishments meted out after trial, defendants have to decide if exercising their constitutional right to a trial by jury is worth the risk. &#8220;The plea they&#8217;re offering potentially lets me stay as a husband and a dad, and to me those are the biggest priorities in my life,&#8221; Bass <a href="https://coloradosun.com/2022/11/21/brush-eastern-colorado-sexting-hearing/">said</a>. &#8220;I basically need to choose: Do I want to clear my name and risk losing my entire life, or do I want to not clear my name but not lose my life?&#8221;</p>
<p>Bass will no longer have to make that choice. But whether or not he will ever clear his name is debatable. &#8220;The accusation carries such a stigma that people are always going to wonder. So no matter what he does, no matter what court rulings we got, I don&#8217;t think he ever recovers from this,&#8221; says Faye. &#8220;That&#8217;s always been the thing that really strikes me about the system is just…how much power and discretion the prosecutor has.&#8221;</p>
</div>
<div class="anyclip-block"></div>
</article>
<nav>
<div class="single-post-signup-box">
<div id="gform_wrapper_17" class="gf_browser_chrome gform_wrapper gravity-theme gform-theme--no-framework puprf-signup-widget_wrapper" data-form-theme="gravity-theme" data-form-index="0">
<div class="gform_heading">
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</nav>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ncrsol.org/2023/03/is-investigating-a-school-sexting-incident-the-same-as-possessing-child-porn-a-judge-says-no/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">4612</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
