Andy 0:00 registry matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts, FYI P. Recording live from FYI, p studios, incognito, and si p studios West, transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 73 of registry matters. Larry 0:20 What's up, Larry, how are you tonight? I'm doing fantastic. It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood on this evening before Easter. Andy 0:28 Easter hunt. So we've got bunnies running around that are going to lay eggs. That's what Larry 0:33 I've heard. Andy 0:35 So that's what it seems what makes you Unknown 0:37 what makes you incognito. I mean, Larry 0:42 I need to know what the location is. So that so that we can verify that you were there. Andy 0:48 You can hear me that's enough air vacation that I am where I am. Larry 0:52 Right? I Andy 0:52 could be on a sailboat in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, and no one would know the wiser. Unknown 0:57 All right, Andy 0:58 if anybody wants to try and you let me though, I can tell you that I'm looking at my window and it looks like there's a tornado that's about to hit that'll get you close to where I am. Larry 1:06 And I remember there was a god that was a serial murderer. And he called he called the police because he was mad at them. They didn't give him credit for all of his killings. And he got caught by the fact that it was a vicious thunderstorm outside when he made his telephone. So be careful what you ask for. I will I will not information. That was back in the 80s. The the Alabama there was like a series of killings. And I realized that they were linked together. So they announced that they were certain that they had a serial killer. And they announced a total and so irritated the killer because it did not give him the correct total. So he goes to a pay phone and calls the police and said you know if you're going to report about me, he said less Yes, get the facts, right, I haven't killed 12. I've killed 17 or whatever. And I want credit for all about work with there was a there was a horrible into standards storm going on at the time. And they that came through all the police recordings of the phone call. So they called up the telephone companies that were the telephone call come problem. And they said we don't know you tell us. And those days, it wasn't like today you had for the telephone company identify or what calls coming from, you had to have some idea of where the call was coming from. So they could do some trap and trace on the on the on the originating side of the equation they could look for, for someone calling the number if they had an idea where it's coming from. So the so the police call the weather service and said it for 12pm or whatever date that was where it was their horrendous thunderstorm activity. And I told him a couple of locations. And then they call the telephone company back and they said, who called us from these two cities? And they said, Oh, well, that's no problem, we can get that information. They went and told him what number called him and it was a pay phone, I think in western Tennessee somewhere. But that's how they call it the guy because he called her a thunderstorm. So if you're going to call in and report things to the police and not want to be identified, try to keep the background noises down to a very, very minimum. Andy 3:09 It's interesting the way that you bring that up though, because I'm thinking about in the roughly late 80s when caller ID was getting really popular about the privacy nuts go like just just ruffle the feathers everywhere saying about what the privacy breach that that would be of having the phone number listed as soon as you Larry 3:28 could tell it was so there were those concerns. And I think the late 80s is probably about the time that it did start making its way around a capacity to do it was there sooner when when they when the phone company went to electronic switching electronic bass switching? They had no matter which generation of the SS what had the capacity but it was there for a long time. But for that very reason they did not offer that as a service because there was this perceived right to privacy. And finally they settled that that you have all the right to privacy the world just simply don't call anybody if you don't Unknown 3:59 know. Larry 4:01 I'll keep your sacred as you want to be. Andy 4:04 Yeah, no doubt. We did get a new patron this week two and it is it is will will finally he was bugging me about getting the podcast early as I can you let me listen to it before it goes out on Tuesday. I said then what's the point of the patrons? Like you know, they they're contributing some funds, and they get it as soon as I release it usually sometime around Sunday at lunch. So we'll came in and he's he's now our new patron. And thank you. Absolutely. And so on behalf of that will has a question to ask. Larry 4:34 So well, we'll Andy 4:35 go ahead there. Larry 4:38 Let's go to save. Thank you for the many good questions and from for becoming a supporter of the podcast. Now I take it that he did not do gross or Unknown 4:48 net. He may have to be honest with you. Larry 4:52 Well, it keeps saying dollars flattering. So there's there's there's no particular about that grocer dead is joke. Okay, so go ahead what I know, Unknown 5:02 I know. Here's well. This is William from Tennessee, and I wanted to thank you for covering what could be getting ready to happen in Tennessee. And the question just occurred to me, with persons on the lifetime supervision, would they lose that ex post facto protection because they're still under state supervision and considered as having diminished rights because the state work allow that to where it says anyone convicted after July the first of 2019, or who continues to be under active supervision by the Tennessee Department of Corrections, because they apply that legally and retroactive to people who are still on lifetime supervision. Thank you, and to all of us who support the registry and all of this unconstitutional monstrosity. I think you're all just such friendly young people. Unknown 6:04 Well, thank you very diligently put wills question. Larry 6:08 I think he may have to have to clarify next week, which is fine. But he he's, it could be gone for two directions for this. I have heard rumors, and I'm not clear on this. And I wish we had a Tennessee attorney that would that would be responsive to this question. Community supervision for life I've heard was imposed on people retroactively, but they've gotten away with it, saying that it was a regulatory scheme that was not intended to be punitive, but supportive of the person to keep them from reoffending. And but if that is, in fact the case, and here the big F because I don't know for sure. But if that is the case, it was seemed like to me that that would be vulnerable based under the doctrine of the those verses Snyder case, because you can call it whatever you want to you can label something civil regulatory, but the test that the that the circuit court, the Sixth Circuit concluded was that, that they were significant burdens imposed, and that regulatory scheme, so called of Michigan's registry, well, community supervision for life. There are significant burdens that I've heard people describe those burdens, including prohibition. So on a number of things, I would think that that would be that would be within the zone of the Sixth Circuit. So that that seems like it'd be a good potential challenge, whether the other other way he may be had if the if they declared fantasies registry, if this is where he's headed with the question registry has has become so oppressive appeared under the six circuits doctrine, that would they be able to continue the registry because of the paper on G supervision for life? It's a very creative question that I hadn't thought of, until I heard it just now. And it might, it might suggest that those two actions need to be combined, that there needs to be a person who makes the claim that has both of those requirements. So it can be supervision for life and registration for life. But But yeah, I'm not really clear. I'm not really clear on what he said, acquitted. But he does come up with fantastic questions. Andy 8:09 Hey, I just I want to throw this out there and see, see what you could pontificate about this. We just had a listener show up in chat. And she says she's completely in the sticks. There's not a traffic light in the whole county. She's in our Kansas. Larry 8:25 Our traffic light in the whole word count in Arkansas doesn't have a traffic light. Andy 8:29 I don't know. But she's laughing. So maybe we should just start diving into these articles. Larry 8:36 Well, I bet she's in low note County. Unknown 8:39 Lone oak. Larry 8:41 Yeah. If you Unknown 8:44 say, hey, it looks like Larry 8:47 if you spell it out, but it but it's a low weight, okay. All Unknown 8:51 right. Well, she's not there. Larry 8:53 It's just it's just do east of Little Rock. Andy 8:55 All right. Well, the first article we have comes from fizz pH ya dot org. And it's kind of an interesting article takes a little bit of a different twist than what we would normally cover on the show. And it's about negative ideas about sexting, encourage unwanted distribution of photos. I think this kind of goes to I think, if you tell somebody not to do something, that they generally then go out and do it. And I feel that that's what this one is kind of going after, in that if you tell the kids that they shouldn't do the thing that they're going to then probably go do the thing. They interviewed a bunch of they interviewed 21 I shouldn't say a bunch 15 to 21 years old, and at least my take on the article is that's what they were they were driving home about. Larry 9:43 Well, I, I I tend to agree with that. I think we talked about in pre show about the movie calendula and about the color What? Andy 9:53 Color gala? Never heard of it. Larry 9:56 You never heard of it until today. Right? Correct. That was that was was a horrible movie, though. That was shown in the 70s on the elected solicitor in Atlanta, Georgia and Fulton County did everything he could to keep it for being shown but go to go into court. And then all of us all of our metro Atlanta just flooded the theater, that we're showing it to find to see what it was all about. Because we were it was negative reinforcement. If it's if they're trying to ban it, it's got to be good. Well, it certainly was not, it was not good. There was nothing redeeming about it. And we should have, we should have heated the newspapers advice that if we went to see the movie, don't blame them for losing our money. But Andy 10:42 there was a time in the maybe the mid 90s that they were trying to ban all the Harry Potter books to those turn, that'd be a pretty big hit. Larry 10:49 But But I think that we still need to try because social media has has the potential to have a significant impact on your life. And think I saw stats on employers who who will make crucial hiring decisions and all sorts of the important decisions about your life but but based on what you're doing on social media, and what you've wait to think about the ramifications of your new these being out there before you give them to somebody because once you send your new nice to somebody on the internet, to my understanding is, it's very difficult for you to control the dissemination From there, Andy 11:24 the internet kind of doesn't ever forget, just like I mean, that's very similar to what we faced with the registry, even if we didn't, even if we abolished all the things and there was still some people left over from the good old days where it was just on the internet. That's that's never going to go away. Larry 11:40 I suppose you're 18 years old, and you're in a frat party and you, you you, you get someone in a in a strange position. And it's all voluntarily and the good humor. A person making a hard decision when you're 26 may not understand that that was the humor in that ever participate, every participant in was voluntarily having fun. And these these things, these things can be very damaging. So even though I think kids are going to be encouraged to do it, if the adults tell them not to do it, I don't know what what we can do, we can sit back and hope, hope hope for the best. And I mean part of what we do trying to raise our youngest of the share life experience with them about how it can be detrimental and certainly turning nobody's of yourself over to people as as it's not a wise thing to do. But it Andy 12:28 also feels like hey, if you tell them not to do it, then they're going to do it. You certainly don't want to encourage them to do it. Maybe to try and do reverse psychology the other way and get them to not do it. I think you lose in both cases. Larry 12:41 What would the solution they just hope for the best. Andy 12:44 You got to educate all I can come up with is educating and just making you can't tell them not to because there's nothing wrong with you sharing a nudie with your boyfriend. It's what you know, you've then lost control over it or girlfriend whichever way you want to work that. And but you got to make make them aware of the consequences. You got to do it as early as possible. I don't know it seems like a losing battle all the way around that almost society is going to have to just say hey, you're going to find some stuff about everyone online and you're just going to have to take it with a grain of salt. Unknown 13:16 Oh, well. Larry 13:17 It's an interesting study. All that was a very small study. But Andy 13:20 yeah, it was absolutely. But you know what, I'll tell you what leading into that then I think that every police department across the United States needs an a mind resistant, armoured personnel carrier I think that all local police department should have one of these things. Larry 13:36 I don't see a problem with a dandy that they you could have. I mean, look at the streets of America every every city I'll travel it's got there's minds exploding all across this country. Andy 13:47 This article comes from reason Sheriff's Department definitely needs a mine resistant vehicle for all those mines in Tennessee. The picture like these two dudes are standing there with like their hands around their waist like like with their thumbs like in the belt looking all stout and, and there's a big ass vehicle behind them. That's just totally ready to go into a I mean, the most hostile place that you could find in Baghdad or something like that. This is I can't, dude, we talked about the militarization of the police all the time. This is over the top this is insanity. Larry 14:19 Well, it was it's a it's a representation of a change in the administration in Washington, the the previous administration had recognized the error of making all the surplus equipment available to local law enforcement and they hit curtail the practice and the president ministrations decided that this is going to waste any is get rid of this stuff and still handed off the local police. But when they when this type of equipment falls into the hands of local police, they they will just look at the what was that the Branch Davidian look at look at the end they will. That was over a wacko, I mean, excuse me. Wait, wasn't that? Waco, Texas? Andy 15:00 Yeah, they drove a tank into the building and the cultural caught on fire. Larry 15:04 Yeah, they're having possession of this type of equipment is going to encourage it to be used. It's kind of like having if you've got a 900 person, police department, and you segment all these specialized units that are highly trained. If you have all these highly trained units, you have to use them. I mean, if you had 14 members of the SWAT team that never got called out, there would be some justification. questions asked about why do we have a SWAT team. So you have SWAT teams called out in the most simple situations because they exist. And people look at me like I'm crazy when I say that. But that's what happens when you wonder why there's a SWAT team there is because you have a SWAT team on your police department. That's why they're there. You wonder why the canine team is biting people, people's legs off. It's because you have that team available to them. That's why they've turned them loose on people because they have them. Well, if they have this equipment in Tennessee, wherever green county is, it looks like what they put the name on it. If they have this. It's only a matter of time that this that this vehicle is going to be used. And then people in Tennessee, you're going to say, why did they call that this? Why did they use this thing? My boyfriend All he did was this that and this was an overreaction? Yes, it was an overreaction, because you allowed them to have this weapon that you as a taxpayer in green county should not allow them to have, but you're choosing to let them have it. And you're probably applauding right now until they misuse it. Andy 16:31 I just can't imagine, like you and your girlfriend or having some sort of domestic dispute and this thing rolls up on your doorstep. Larry 16:40 Well, hopefully they won't use it in that situation. But it will be used, you know, they have it and it will be used at some point. Unknown 16:48 It'll be Larry 16:49 in and they operate it out on camera just so they can show that that they're putting good use of this equipment. And Andy 16:56 and then on the flip side of that, if we move over to the Salt Lake Tribune, we have a new district attorney over there who isn't quite as I can't think of a word offhand, who isn't quite as aggressive and holistic as Larry Krasner is in Philadelphia. But here's another district attorney that's trying to curtail the impact of putting people through the criminal justice system, taking people that have low level offenses and putting them through diversion programs. He did a lot of work in the Ukraine trying to rehabilitate their prosecutorial system and an opportunity came up for him to run in this county in I guess it's Provo County, or I guess that maybe that's the city in Utah. And anyway, I you know, here's here's another prosecutor that's going a different route than just locking everybody up. Larry 17:51 I love it. And Utah's all accounts, a very conservative state. And and you can, you can really be excited when you see something like this. And you told us that I think it said it's a second largest county. But how largest the second largest county in Utah? I don't know it tells a pretty Andy 18:09 big place. Larry 18:11 Well, you know, Salt Lake, I'm guessing would be the largest place in Utah, but I think it said this is the second largest county in Utah. Right. And I guess it looks like it Utah County. Andy 18:23 It could be it could be. But he does. He does make some pointed differences with what we keep covering with Laura Krasner in Philly. In. I think you pointed out the quote, he says he's not trying to reduce case loads, which I wouldn't say that President was trying to reduce caseload. He was trying to reduce the whole the jail population in Philly all together. He said, but that's not the purpose. The purpose for me is really to maximize our resources, be more efficient and get to the root of the problem sooner rather than later. Larry 18:52 I'm all I'm all for that approach. It Hey, probably get less push back because he's, he's he's not he's made it clear that we're going to continue to deal with people who, who have been breaking the law at low levels, that he'd also points out what's not eligible, serious crimes, of course. But he says, rather than send them towards this direction through a door number one, we're sending them to a door number two, and hopefully that will result in a change in their life, and they won't come back for repeat, which is a laudable goal, if you can achieve it, if if you can send people through a door number two, and they don't come back, Andy 19:29 and it says that they're most of those are for low level drug offenses, that they filed around 5000 cases last year, and a third of those were for small amounts of drugs. That's a you know, that's what like 1600 or so cases that are all just based on a small amounts of possession. Larry 19:49 Oh, you talk counties got 600,000 population and so looks like it's Provo? Correct. Okay, so it's it's it's it's, it's, it's it's a quiet suburban area when you talk about a half million people. That's that's that's not that's not the sticks. Andy 20:05 Well, other than Utah in Salt Lake City, I bet you the rest of Utah is pretty much the sticks. Larry 20:11 Well, it is. And it's it's a very heavily Mormon. Yes. And generally, lanes for conservative. That's why I'm so excited about this, it has three. And when you take it take a status largely on the conservative side of the political spectrum. And they they go this direction, at least in one county, that's positive. They have 3.1 billion people in Utah, which is what it half times by state. Andy 20:43 The article does not say anything about the origin, not necessarily the origin, this guy had the origin kind of independent, but I'm wondering, do you do you perceive this change happening nationwide, or these just a couple isolated incidents that have 5000 pounds, or whatever it is, Larry 21:02 I'm actually feeling that it is a change, I think that the declining of the criminal the crime rate, and people are going to write emails and say, well, that's not universal. But it is largely universal. If you take out slight urban areas where where the hasn't been been a success. But I think that the population has decided that now it's time to be more relaxed. We saw that with the first step back, which is a significant act, even though it's not nearly brought it up. We're seeing we saw it in states or through the South. I mean, we saw Governor Kasich in case it can Ohio and we saw some limited reforms in Tennessee, Mississippi, when haley barbour was I mean, it does seem to be the beginning of a trend, that Americans might have decided that they can't continue to incarcerate it so many multiples greater than the rest of the civilized world, that that's not the best use of the resources, that that's a that's a fantastic thing, if we've got to realize that. Andy 22:04 Um, and I can't remember which article, but it says that one half of the population has a friend or family member that has touched the criminal justice system, we've 320 million people, the United States or 340, or something like that. That's a truckload of people that have touched the criminal justice system. Larry 22:23 It is indeed. And that's why we're, that's why we're going to eventually have to have a discussion about how we shield people's records. And this digital age that we're living in, because Europe is ahead of us on that, like, there are other things they were realizing that that the digital record is as an enormous barrier towards fully integrate, after you've had an altercation with the law, so we're, we're gonna have to have that conversation, Andy 22:51 you probably are at least referring to if you just get like some sort of you just get booked, but then notice just filed, that stuff has to get removed. I mean, I'm assuming you're talking about that. Right? Well, I'm talking Larry 23:06 about the whole gamut. I'm talking about what the rest records that don't resulted in conviction. I'm talking about rest records that do resulting conviction. We just had a limited expansion bill. I think we're like the only 10 or 11 states that didn't have any form of expansion. But we just got a governor's signature on an exponential bill that had previously been vetoed by by two different governors here. We've we've we were intern, or it's just the beginning. But we're going to have to decide at some point in this forgiving country, that after you've served your time, and after you've been a model citizen, that at some point, those records need to go away and not live in perpetuity. That's a conversation we're going to have to have. I did I don't think will change that about my lifetime. But we're going to have to have that. Andy 23:53 I did see someone on Twitter. And I mean, he got a lot of pushback for saying this. He said after five years of clean record, everything gets removed. Unknown 24:03 Well, Larry 24:05 there is a lot of pushback, we had a freshman representative here that ever use the right to be forgotten that she got so much flak that she just wished it was a bill instead of one out move forward. But But we did get a limited exposure on bill side, it'll help people who who charges were dismissed or who had low level fences after they've been after they've been free from supervision for a period of time they are they're shielded, they're not expunged. And course i'm not sure anything's ever expunge because I don't think the FBI has ever destroyed a shred of history that has had since J. Edgar Hoover was was around it, and I don't think they're ever going to start. But but for public view, that's a significant thing. Even if the FBI and the law enforcement apparatus still knows your history, as long as it's not public. That's a dramatic improvement. Andy 24:50 And then we run down that whole path again, if someone doing a FOIA request trying to get those Records released, Larry 24:57 but we would have to shield them from that from FOIA requests that, that if if they and and your your criminal history, I do believe when you go to the FBI, only you can get it you have to send a copy of your fingerprints to the FBI. You don't know that you can't send for someone else's FBI rap sheet only you can do that. Andy 25:17 I'll tell you on this next article, I didn't even consider that this was a thing that took a plea, Brooklyn's district attorney will support your parole. Most prosecutors automatically oppose parole requests, not just like when you're actually doing your parole request, they possibly file paperwork opposing your parole, when you took your plea or got convicted this articles from the marshal project, I never even considered that that was a thing that they would just file like a memo for record data 10 or 20 years out that when this person tries to get parole that hey, we already oppose it. Even though we don't know what the person has done in prison, whether they were model model citizen working in the wood shop, or they were running around, know raping Robin people in the lockers? Larry 26:03 Well, I didn't know it either way. It makes sense. Because I mean, not that it's good policy. But it makes sense. If that is your official Golder, to collaborate with the victims and rec anybody's chance of getting out. It makes sense to write down as much ugly stuff as you possibly can. Now, because 20 years from now, your memory is going to be different. So so you're the maddest now. So it makes sense that they would they would write these letters, putting down the facts, but this district attorney said that he wrote those letters at one time that automatically opposed people's parole, but his offices taken an entirely different posture now that they're gonna they're gonna actually not opposed to parole of people who've flat out because that was the acceptance of responsibility. And he even said that they might not oppose it, even if you went to trial. Andy 26:48 Right. Larry 26:50 So so this Andy 26:50 is in this is Brooklyn, the county of Brooklyn, I think it is. And it's the one of the I think it said the second largest county in New York. I think we're borough maybe Larry 27:01 have a think i think i think they call it borrow but we have to get a New York on here to explain how they Andy 27:09 it's the says the state second largest. Boro, yes. Larry 27:16 Interesting. Andy 27:17 So they're saying, Hey, we got to decent, not not prosecutors? Well, I guess this is just returning also, so to decent prosecute to articles tonight. Larry 27:27 This is Eric Gonzalez from from Brooklyn. And we've got him on, like I say from a liberal, relatively liberal place and then a relatively conservative place that that's that that's good. Absolutely. Andy 27:41 Do you think that it's good to have a juvenile justice reforms in a place like Oregon, I mean, don't we just want to like if they're, they've committed a crime, like we want to actually try even 12 year olds as adults, and just nail him to the fence as hard as we can. Larry 27:56 Well, that was kind of what we were saying in the pre show banter about but my state to say we'd lead the pack and justice, criminal juvenile justice reform. nearly two decades ago, we realized that we're doing doing it all wrong. And I think we've got a pretty good model here. It's really really hard to try to juvenile as an adult in a state it's exceedingly difficult to do that and it shouldn't be Andy 28:21 what's the mindset behind trying children as adults? Larry 28:26 Well, it's it's a simplistic analysis if they're if they can do an adult crime they can do adult time that that's the mantra that was promoting that is it they can they shouldn't do the crime it's I can't do the time but you can't do that. You can't use that as analysis their mind is not developed. Do you think that's similar to the six crime piece that you have kids playing doctor and doing kid exploratory things so that while they can do that then we should try those was adults also? Absolutely. It's it's to me it's kind of disgusting. Like I say, thankfully, I'm state move beyond that. A long time ago, we we we have a pretty good model with juvenile justice of what we do here. And it's all about rehabilitation and diverting the juvenile and reintegrating them successfully with without the vestiges of their of their past. And I give people example, most everybody over probably 40 years old remember sam donaldson but he owned a ranch in Mexico and one of his ranch managers got, the whole family got killed by boy named Cody. And Cody was only 14, he killed mom, dad and sister. And a little the prosecutors tried to try Cody as an adult, they failed. Because in this day, they have to be proven. The prosecutor bears the burden of showing that they're not amenable to treatment This is available anywhere in the state and they could not meet that burden. So Cody was tried as a juvenile which resulted in the longest we can hold a juvenile matter what they've done to stage 21 and they must be released. Okay, and so Cody went free it too anyone as far as I know he hasn't killed anybody else. But but it's it's it's it's outdated thinking to be tough on juveniles. It sounded good when it was being and actually, at one time I was kinda for it. Just like a lot of people. I thought, well, these these kids were big hooligans, and we've got to do something to get their attention. We've got a we've got to get tougher. Well, I was wrong. There. There are ways you can get through the juveniles what get without putting them in prison for the rest of their life and particularly adult presence, which is being done across this country. They're putting people they're putting putting on the adult justice system, and putting them in horrible correctional settings that they should not be and I don't think they're putting 12 year olds in with adults as far as I know, anywhere. But they're they're certainly putting that bear very bad custody situations. We're we're not doing anything to help the 12 year old to rehabilitate. Andy 30:55 This seems like a no brainer. To me it says a 2007 study by this set. CDC, the Centers for Disease disease control found that youth are 34% more likely to reoffend when prosecuted in an adult system versus a juvenile one. Larry 31:11 Well, we can't be that's a bunch of liberal mumbo jumbo Andy 31:14 here before percent I mean, that is a that would be a huge reduction in crime just on its own by not missing the boat, trying the kids and putting them in adult facilities. Larry 31:25 Like say hopefully, putting them at all facilities. I don't think that's been done. But but but putting them in adult system or the penalty that's handed down is handed down bottom don't judge who's not specially trained to deal with juveniles on Adult prosecutor that's not spitting specifically geared towards the needs of a juvenile and putting them in a hard core facilities. Whether or not they have adults that are not as it is we if we're going to make big in jail soft reading, but it should be made soft for juveniles because there's hope for saving them. And you can't save them, but put them on ice and put them in the harshest cages you can find you're not going to get the best result by doing that. It sounds good. Like I say at one time, it sounded good to me. Back in the 90s. When we had Hillary Clinton say about the super predator, she referred to the juveniles and super predators we were wrong. And that was that was not the way to go. But that's what direction a lot of states went. And and now they're trying to do that. And it looks like they're gaining some traction. So it says Kimberly McCullough, policy director face so you're going to bankrupt the Bill said measure level was approved at the height of the tough on crime era, which is what I'm saying. It was it was it the reaction at the time. And it was an overreaction, and we were wrong. Gotcha, Andy 32:49 gotcha, gotcha. Well, this next article comes from the news and observer. It says in North Carolina court costs, create debtors prison, here you go, you're already on the margin of barely being able to afford life and you end up getting some sort of conviction of some sort, maybe it's county level and you end up with 1300 dollars in court fees plus in a Dutch additional $40 a month for probation. And you stop paying into they lock you back up. That's good times. I think that's the way we should do everybody. Larry 33:19 Well, I guess our tension, doesn't it, Andy 33:21 it would totally get their attention. But then I guess on the backside of it, then they would lose their job, lose their car, lose their family. And you would just end up with a revolving door. Seems like it would be like fiscally more responsible to figure out a way to help them get through that. Instead of spending, figure out 40, Grand 30 grand, whatever a year to keep them behind bars when they could make their minimum wage job. $10 an hour job doing something on the outside that sounds like it'd be more productive. Larry 33:50 Well, this is one of the it's a short rate. And I encourage people some of our articles are long reads but this one is short enough. But this one is a guy who had a car accident that turn this world upside down because he lost a leg. Andy 34:05 Right? Larry 34:06 And he was paid was criminal responsible for the accident, do I read the article, but but he ended up having to go on disability. So he's getting 700 bucks a month. I'm assuming from SSRI Social Security, but he's getting a small check. And he can't pay the cost associated that they suck it with a bill of 1300 and $54 and 50 cents in court order fines and fees plus an additional $40 a month for the cost of probation. I asked all you brilliant mathematicians in North Carolina. Yeah, you've got a guy to get $700 a month. And he can probably eke out a shelter somewhere with his federal benefits from snap, to have a one room one room shanty? Would you rather him be on the federal dole getting us SSI and hit his head in his ice at 10? If I meant to say Snap, snap benefits and living independently? Or would you rather be using entirely state of North Carolina funds because presence for state crimes or state responsibilities or county responsibilities? Would you rather be spending 28 to 38 $40,000 a year to incarcerate this guy which kills his disability check, and it kills his federal benefits? And you get to bear the burden of that in North Carolina? I'm not a mathematical genius, but it does doesn't seem like it's good public policy to me to do this to people. Have I done some my my arithmetic wrong? Or what? Andy 35:36 I can't figure out why this would come up at all, this makes absolutely no sense. But then don't people then try and gain the system to some degree going? Not going to lock me up. So what's the what's the impact of me not paying it. Larry 35:51 Or you would run that run out potential risk. And you'd have to do it and individualized because then visualized assessment of each person. I think in his case, we we we've got the the figures, we know that he's getting $700 a month and disability. And we know that he probably although 1300 $54 doesn't seem like a lot of money till to a number of people. But if you draw $700 a month, and you're trying to pay rent and sustenance, I don't think you're even though it'd be able to hack down at that at 25 and 50 bucks a month to get that you're just not going to have that spare reserve capacity, if that's all you have. So we grew quite an individualized determination made. So the the offender would have to cough up their their financial stuff if they said they can't pay. And of course, you've got the choice of not coughing it up or going to jail. But I think most people there were legitimately not able to pay with mind sharing the financial stuff. Do you know certainly not? Andy 36:45 Certainly not. Which is funny, because I don't want to jump ahead. But the next article is about mandatory minimums and giving judges the ability to have some determination and sentences. And it seems like in this article, that is what is happening in North Carolina, that they are not able to make any sort of determination about what kind of penalties there might be in waving those fees and fines and so forth. Unknown 37:10 Well, Unknown 37:13 it sounds Larry 37:13 like to me, you're done going after the liberal side, you think judges should have let's say the judge, actually, here's the case, and here's from the the victim and from the state and from the fence and from theoretically, a sentencing memo and a serious case to explain that mitigating factors. And you believe that? Wouldn't it make more sense to help the lawmakers who never see that person to just arbitrarily declare that a crime merits this much as a minimum? I mean, doesn't that make more sense so that people get treated fairly? And we don't have all these manipulation of the system? Andy, why why do you guys want the system be better? Okay, why don't we just have it where the computer doesn't sentence again, that everybody's treated fairly? Andy 37:58 And and to even push that further. That's what the will of the people was to write? Larry 38:03 Well, apparently, so. But I've totally being facetious here. I know Andy 38:07 you want but I know that people wanted this legislator and they they make them like they would vote them out if that's what they wanted. Larry 38:15 Well, some of the listeners might not know that are being Yes, he is. But mandatory minimums to be totally wreck the the idea that an individualized decision can be made. But the problem that we have with that is it sometimes even makes our own people mad because they don't understand the variables that cause a sentence to be different. And they'll say, Well, my son got four years, and her son got probation. You see how they treat one? How that how there's this disparity? Well, there could be a whole lot of variables in there that caused your son to get to not get probation. And we could spend a whole podcast on that I think we have talked about the differences in sentences. It could be barely at your one county over one time, he oversaw rehabilitative of what one is more hard nosed, because that's what the voters demand of their judges that they elect. And it could be that 111 case the prosecutor better much better deal because the person had a think they did not rattled themselves, they didn't sign a confession. And the victim is not credible. The person if it the case go to trial, the person might not have been I have presented very well. So you end up with with with different outcomes. But a court ought to be able to make an individualized determination and mandatory minimum should be should be a diminishing factor in our criminal justice system. But But right now, a lot of lot of judges are faced with that they must impose certain amount of times because that is the will of the people. They've demanded it. And we even have some of that in my state, although it's not as bad here. But we have some mandatory sentences, it must be imposed particular firearm enhancement, if it's used in a commission of a crime, and the that we have on habitual time that has to be imposed, that can't be suspended. And we do have some mandatory minimums. But it's it's it's not wise public policy, but that's what the public wants. Andy 40:11 And then, to drive over to this mandatory minimum articles from NPR, Illinois, legislation would let judges depart from mandatory minimums, but only on a few crimes. Here, here we are right again. So the legislative body says this crime gets five years, 10 years, 30 years, and they're going to depart from that a little bit. I can't really figure out why you wouldn't want judges to do that individualized determination. Isn't that what the judges for to figure out? What would be the most effective punishment for that particular defendant? Larry 40:44 Well, that is intellectually that is what you would want. But you have people who like like the factors I just said, they don't understand. The the what was the swimmer guy and California, Andy 40:57 Michael Phelps, or no, it wasn't Michael Phelps. It was a query luck luck, man. No, not all the Larry 41:04 ones that know the one who got who get to play it went back to Indiana. Oh, that that's who you're talking about? Yeah, that that that case was aberrational behavior. And the the probation service recommended that sentence that cost the judges job, and it caused a lot of be changed where there's now mandatory minimums and the great liberal state of California, because it wasn't fair for the victim. So you know, that, that that that outcome game that he got such a very brief amount of prison time, it was like, what was it 60 or 90 days in jail? And then probation? Yeah, yeah. No. They they, they answered the question. The way I see it is that people don't understand it intellectually, we should have judicial discretion. But people believe that discretion is exercise because of wealth. He got that sentence, not because of this characteristics of his him as individual is because he was from a wealthy family. And they put the pressure on and money talks. And that's why he got that outcome. And that's what a lot of people believe. Andy 42:11 This woman was Dr. Larry 42:13 Brock Turner. Yes. Andy 42:14 And then judge Persky got recalled on the heels event. And then they Larry 42:19 changed the law. Right, to put in a mandatory minimums. And so and I'm criticizing the liberals and California for doing that. That was the wrong reaction. But it was it was a reaction to public demand. And the millions of people who expressed that, that that was an unjust sentence, and the fact that he was overwhelmingly recall, I mean, it wasn't even a close recall. I got, he got like about 1012 points on the recall. Unknown 42:52 Sometimes I feel like we're going forward, and then sometimes we're going backwards, Larry 42:56 what we're doing bubbles, where I say to me movement is going to really cause a lot of problems. I mean, we're going to end up we've talked about this over and over again about statute limitations. But the danger of that that's going backwards, when we can convict people for something that they may have done 30, 4050 years ago. That's going backwards. We're requiring mandatory minimums because of one incident, that was hardly sensationalized as going backwards. Right, right. Right, right. Unknown 43:29 Absolutely. Absolutely. And, Andy 43:31 you know, maybe I should have put this sort of at the front of the of the podcast. But so here's an article that kind of is reminiscent of the first article, this is from the Toledo blade. Harrisburg high school student faces harassment charge for a Twitter account. And you gotta dig through go back about four different articles in it. But there was a student who created a Twitter account to then post pictures, and then have the students rate who was the hottest student in the school. And I think he posted like 60 something pictures of girls and ranking them. And they figured out who it was. And that kid now faces a faces like harassment charges for for having this information published. Well, they ought to be locked up, not just harassment charges, writing girls, we can't we can't have that. Andy, we should, we should create some sort of mandatory minimum so that this guy never sees the light of day, right? Larry 44:28 What gives a person or write to write some one on their physical attributes and publish that? Andy 44:35 I think if I mean, I suppose if the person were in public, you could take pictures of them all day long. They were in a public space, I suppose. Larry 44:44 Well, there are good, I'm being facetious. There may be some constitutional constitutional issues here. I think that that now, you get into some very nuances of the Constitution, because when the kids in school, they don't enjoy it, it's got like porcelain probation, they don't enjoy the full gamut of constitutional protections. You can limit for the educational, if you holler, and scream, but this is for the keep the edgy, emotional environment focused on academics, and free from distractions, and nonviolent, you can make all kinds of claims of school administrators and get away with things you probably couldn't get away with. But this is certainly a great area. And I think that the civil liberties people will probably be looking at this because I think the boy just might have a right to say who he thinks is hot. I just don't see, I don't see that that's an area that they can go too far, including him. Andy 45:35 Is there is there an angle in there? Possibly, if he is saying, you know, so here's the bottom ranked person, and she's ugly and vile, and no one would ever have interesting. I mean, is there an angle there to actually like, almost like the bullying stance that is going around these days? Larry 45:54 I think that's clearly the angle that they would be taking it to Paris board High School. But I think just like that, although it might be dubious for for the for a kid to be doing that. The parents would say, Look, don't be doing that. You have to be pulling people, but but to, for the school administration to take a really heavy hand and then bring charges against them. I think they might be the be in some quicksand here. But he's charged with telecommunications harassment. Right? parents work, police, along with the criminal charges student could face this one by the district, including potential expulsion. I just don't know that I'm comfortable with what would be the difference if we didn't have social media, and a bunch of teenage boys or teenage girls passed around a glossy photo. And they took a poll about who was hot. And then they made a list. What what how is this different other than it's just an electronic platform? What what makes what gives the school the right to say that you guys can't control and the girls on the other side can come for decide who's hot? Andy 47:04 And I'm kind of wondering then does the kid get any level of decent representation for them to push back on this? Or does the kid just end up taking a plea and ends up to be charged as guilty with something that maybe could have been fun one? Larry 47:19 I think that this will probably get some pushback. Does Electronic Frontier Foundation? Yes, the ACLU. I think that when you start including this episode, this is probably getting a lot more attention than what we know about. Could be worse. Worse, his parents were in high school that anyway, Andy 47:36 I'm assuming Toledo blade, I'm going to throw it out there and beat Toledo, Ohio. Let's find out real quick pairs. It says Harrisburg Ohio, so Toledo. Harrisburg, Ohio, is in wood County. Does that tell you everything you wanted to know? Larry 47:54 Not everything but but I? I'm uncomfortable with it at first blush, and there's always details you might not know. But I just I just don't feel comfortable with a parcel not being able to have a hot list. Andy 48:06 Yep, I understand what you know. And that's how Facebook actually became the thing, right? Do you know that the history of Facebook is that we're Mark Zuckerberg created a it's called a scraper. So he went and looked at all the pictures of the girls photos in the online directory and created a program called hot or not, and they do other kids on the campus would rate where the girls were hot or not. And I mean, that's the exact same thing. And that's the Nexus that's the original thing of Facebook. Larry 48:35 I did not know that. I did Unknown 48:39 the venue is this, of learning Larry 48:41 the history of space book. Andy 48:43 Yes. The fine institution that that is what we before we take our little halfway break, which this will be a short perhaps was not even halfway. The Trump administration is quietly making it harder for some people to apply for federal jobs, this from the hill. And in the previous administration, there was a lot of emphasis on doing things like ban the box. So if you're trying to apply for a job at different places, you don't have to divulge your, your criminal history right up front, it's probably going to happen somewhere along in the process. But at least when you're filling out the application, you're not writing it on there. But here it is. There the rolling that back. Larry 49:23 Yes, I have put this in here just I wanted to make a brief point about Unknown 49:29 what Larry 49:30 administration's say versus what they do. And people have heard me, I'm all about the policy of administration, not about the characters are liking someone and and this this president, to his credit, help get the first step back to the finish line. But this president, not to his credit, his administration is taking a very hard nose on prosecutor when I pointed Jeff Sessions and now with the new Attorney General's not a whole lot of difference. And it is so far it has early his tenure about the posture they're taking on punishment, and sentencing. And how they're dealing it this is this is a this is an example of that they've administratively decided that your background is relevant to them, even if you've got a diversionary type arrangement where there was actually no charges filed or you were diverted from prosecution. They're winning deals to be disclosed. Well, seems like that might be kind of counter to, to, to, to what they say therefore, which is to give people a second chance. And maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't like people watch what they say versus will end up that goes with any administration, watch what they say versus what they do. Because it's easy to other words, but you need to get below the surface and look at what's happening. And below the surface, there are some things that we don't like that we're seeing from this administration when it comes to criminal justice particular in terms of the hardest stamps or taking a prosecuting maximum sentences, maximum charges. And now trying to expand that background check to include divergence. For those who are applying to be federal employees or federal contractors. I think the article said, Andy 51:10 crazy crazy. I was having a conversation and you had an independent conversation with someone else regarding a Florida bill. That almost sounds like the tow truck bill you've brought up recently in here's a bill that might require that hotels, gather information about registrants registrants would have to announce that they're going to stay there. And then the hotel would have to possibly notify all the people staying there. This, this seems kind of crazy. Larry 51:45 That's what House Bill 987, which is in Florida, and the Florida Legislature right now, I became aware of but just a couple of days ago, when I was talking to a member of the Florida edge Action Committee, legislative team. And I we had a brief conversation about it that wasn't even part of the phone call. But the the, the what I took from what she told me was that the there was going to pose an obligation to to register your intent to stay two days in advance and for the for the establishment to notify all the guests that this person was there. And that's extremely problematic. For a number of reasons that so this is this is a dangerous bill. Andy 52:30 What would happen if you are traveling, I mean, Florida's I mean, it's a narrow state. But there's the panhandle part, but I mean, it's a it's a it's a long drive from top to bottom, where if you were, if you were driving from Key West into GA, or something like that, you almost couldn't make it in one shot where you would have to spend the night and you wouldn't necessarily know where you're going to stop at what time like, I mean, that just completely derails your ability to move around. Larry 52:58 It does. But unfortunately, the the the winning strategies, you should not to play the sex offender card. Although I do it, I do it when when it when it's the best strategy, but the winning strategy on this one may not be to raise the hardship on the offender, you probably want to get a lot more involvement of of hospitality type Association, since Florida is a big tourist state, you would want to convey to the hospitality industry of how they the big bad government is about to settle them with a responsibility that they do not want, that you are going to in order to know that you're notified that your guest you cannot you can also you have to examine and hopefully, there's something in there that makes the the hotel very responsible. And subway because that would be the easiest way to kill it. If they're fettered, never reports it then then it would it would it would be a toothless endeavor. So what's really going to make something like this work, if it's gonna work would be if the hotels started checking their guests against the sex offender registry. And you would want to convince the hospitality industry that that's not a responsibility they want they don't have the money for it. And that they wouldn't want the liability if they missed someone. And that that the mechanics of notifying the guests would be everybody. Can you imagine a 500 room hotel on a beach tried to notify all the guests that that a sex vendors arriving? What would the mechanics of that look like? What would that look like? It Andy 54:36 would look like a an old Victorian ballroom where they were the guys out there? Why am I noticing the arrival of Mr. And Mrs. Smith? Larry 54:44 That's what it's like. But But I think that that the Florida action committees that they're in capable hands, and I think though that that they have been I just told him off the first blush, I would be trying to involve people from the hospitality industry that their trade associations, and they that that is a big tourism state. And they pride themselves on passing over the cost of government to outsiders, you do not want to do anything to disrupt tourism in any way. And this would this going to be a disruptor of the tourist traffic. Andy 55:16 Maybe they could put it up on like the marquee the digital sign out there and say, hey, there's a sex offender here. I'm sure that would be great for business. Larry 55:24 I'm sure it would be. But this legislation has, it's got a long way to go. Finish Line. It looks like it was introduced on February 20, when it was first filed. And it has apparently made it through the committee processes that they have in the house. And it looks like it's on the house calendar as of the 17th, which was three days ago. And I hate to tell you, if it's next to the house calendar, it's almost a done deal. But it's going to get out of the house, which means it's going to get over to the Senate Andy 55:55 to us suspect that this is actually going to make it or do you not Larry 55:58 know i think i think house for you can't vote no on something like this. Unknown 56:02 Right? Definitely Tell me but you've got it. Larry 56:06 You've got to stop it before it gets to the floor. Andy 56:09 And you got to find all those diversion tactics to delay it to derail it all those things before you get the body to vote on it. Larry 56:15 Yeah. Now the point about to make is if you look at the committee votes, and it got a favorable vote, and government operations and technology by nine to two, but then there's another committee, Commerce Committee, which would probably do do more with tourism, they only voted 13 to 11 for it. But I just about guarantee you that does 11 days when it gets to the house door, well all of a sudden become gays, right? Because the last thing they're going to want is on final approval final passage in the house that takes that there's campaign fodder that they voted against to build that would protect the public from sex offenders. So you're going to you're going to end up probably having a lot of 11 days switch to yeas Andy 56:58 when it goes to the floor. So you got to keep them from having to embarrass themselves, so to speak, to keep it from them having to vote on it all together. Larry 57:06 That That is correct. You've got this stuff, it can't make it to the floor, if it makes it to the floors. It's almost ns true with almost all legislation. Very few bills fail on Final passes. When they get to the third reading. There's a little perfunctory to debate but they're generally going to pass it's got to be something really controversial. That doesn't pass but but this is very likely to pass the final on the house and get over to the Senate. So you got it you gotta get you gotta get get some people involved, that have financial interest in this that you're since you're in a conservative state, you're going to have to use arguments that appeal to conservatives, which is business, that this is going to be disruptive to business. I'm not sure that saying that it's going to cause a problem for 600 is going to be your most compelling argument, although it will cause problems for sex offenders are on the registry, but you're trying to win at and the issue, the issue is that it this is going to be disruptive to commerce, and it's going to be an impossible thing to fulfill and to comply with. Andy 58:11 Mm hmm. Well, all right. That is the Larry 58:15 time to turn the tape. Andy 58:17 Well, I mean, we can just close out the program at this point. But I do have a, like a bereavement announcement to make, if you will. I just got an email message from one of our, like intermediate long patrons and the individual son just got sentenced to 32 years. So we lost a patron out of that. And I just want to I want to send out my most heartfelt wishes to this individual. I don't want to mention the name of the person I don't want to call you out. I'm just I'm so deeply sorry to hear your news about your son going getting a 32 year sentence. I would love to Larry 58:49 have a private conversation with that person and see if there's any way we can be supportive. And I wanted to make I want to make a personal management maybe apology however it's taken. We got an email from someone about the podcast last week about Janice Baluchi, a comment I made called Baluchi. I think I said not to go back and listen to it. So I can't tell you verbatim what I said. But I did not intend to slight Janice in any way. And I said that on the podcast on repeating that today. Janice has done a lot of amazing work. In fact, our soul is an organization has been very supportive of her. We gave her advocate water advocate of the year I was on the board of directors at that time. I've had her own so many conference calls. And I always I'm always excited to see Janice at work, the point I was making, and Janice has said similar things this bill got hijacked and the process. And it resulted in a removal process that's marginally better than having nothing at all, if you have nothing at all. Obviously, that's not ideal. This process that they create in California, it's going to create lots of money opportunities for attorneys to make money to follow these petitions. And in my view, and I hope I am terribly wrong, but in my view, the way the law is constructed, now very few people are going to be be released from the rich. And that was the point I was making, you know, if you if you if you think you're eligible for removal, call it Belushi and see what she says I'm doubtful that it's going to go very well for people because they gave the prosecution they gave the victims too much influence. And there doesn't even need to be a petition process by federal standards after person has been on for their 15 or 25 years, which you can get five years reduced on a tier one. There doesn't need to be petition process to start what they can just automatically time out. This This was as a tragic bill that they started out a whole lot better ended up to be crappy. And that was the point I was making. But it's not to diminish Janet Janet Janet anyway. Andy 1:01:02 All right, then. Well, very good. Well, not so good. couple pieces of bad news. But then obviously that they're at the end. Oh, can Larry, how can they find us on the internets? I don't Larry 1:01:13 think they're gonna be able to find us anymore on the internet. Andy 1:01:16 We've been taken off. Have they pulled on neil bortz, and they've pulled us off the internet from their end. Larry 1:01:21 So yes, that's what they've done with disconnected. Let me let me go back to that information. Because I was looking, I was looking at the article, you can find us very, very easily by looking for registry matters dot CEO. Andy 1:01:37 How about a phone number, your favorite place for people to reach out to us? Larry 1:01:40 Yes, they need more voice messages, short, concise, but voice messages, we can play 747 to 274477. And if they want to send us an email message, they will be gladly read by Andy and they go to registry matters cast@gmail.com. Andy 1:02:03 And of course, the best way to support the podcast is do what Larry 1:02:08 to is to become a patron@patreon.com slash registry matters. Outstanding. Andy 1:02:15 Well, that's all I have, Larry, I'm on the road. So we can make this one a teeny little bit short. And we'll go back to the normal schedule next week. I think Larry 1:02:23 people be happy to have a shorter podcast. Andy 1:02:26 Perhaps perhaps. Have a great night, Larry, and I'll talk to you soon. Larry 1:02:29 Thanks, Andy. Good night. Thank you for listening to the IP IP network. Transcribed by https://otter.ai