April 26, 2010

County Probation Director Soft on Sex Criminals

I was absolutely astonished when I read yesterday’s Buffalo News.
First off, once again, we are confronted with evidence that the state’s sex-offender civil confinement statute is far too weak. Our old friend Assemblyperson Francine DelMonte assails the toothless law that she sponsored, complaining about the high concentration of sex offenders in Niagara Falls, and demanding the other communities “share the burden” of providing homes to pedophiles and rapists:
“No one area should have to bear the entire burden.”

“All three [Niagara County] cities have major hospitals,” DelMonte said. “Bus routes exist in each of the communities. They all have housing, so it’s not a question of resources.”

In case you didn’t catch that, Francine thinks that people who live in Lockport and North Tonawanda should open their homes to perverts, pedophiles, and freaks. Which, of course, is the same approach she took last year when she demanded that a pervert be placed in a motel across the street from a Wheatfield daycare center.
If we stopped writing right there, we’d have a pretty salient post. But the thing is, Francine’s political pandering wasn’t the most offensive part of the entire article, this was:
Anthony C. Mauro, the county’s director of probation, said the state should reconsider many of the restrictive laws, making them apply only to “child predators,” not all sex offenders. He said only about one-third of those offenders truly need the restrictions.
In case there’s any confusion, what Mauro just said is this: child rapists are bad, and we don’t want them in our communities, but we can live with the freaks who rape women who are 18 and older. (As an aside, I hope to Christ Mr. Mauro is just offering his own opinion, and not attempting to speak for the entire county government on this one.)
It’s good to know such a clear-eyed lawman is protecting us. And, in case you’re wondering what Tony Mauro’s Barney Fife routine is costing our county, this year he’ll pull down a cool $103,718.
And ladies, if your premises aren’t protected by Smith & Wesson, with Tony Mauro on the job, maybe they should be.

9 comments:

lewiston razor said...

Tony Mauro is knocking down those dollars? The Niagara Falls City Administrator is making 110K and that shocked everyone. The Niagara Falls Economic Development Chief is making $100K and that opened everyone's eyes. How the hell is this County paying a salary like that? The Falls is totally dysfunctional and we understand that but the County!? Let's take a look at other Niagara County Department head salaries!

The Avenger said...

Sickening. This moron should be booted from office. Sex crime offenders are NEVER rehabbed. We should either:

1) Lock'em up forever
2) Fry them
3) Cut off their...um, manliness...to make sure they never commit their act again.

But in New York, we put them up in a hotel and provide them with services. Hell, why don't we just give them a list of women and children who are home alone.

Where are the pitchforks and torches. In the old days, the men of the neighborhood would handle this.

Dark Knight said...

It'd be nice to see Prohaska do a little expose on this kind of stuff rather than report the latest non-story from the Legislature.

Rocketboy said...

Fact... Sex Offenders have one of the LOWEST recidivism rate.

Fact... Sex Offender does not equal child molester.

Fact... Some people deemed sex offenders had consentual sex with someone just a few years different from their own age. And in some extreme cases, there have been people labled as Sex Offenders because they had a birthday. Not because their partener became younger, but because a few days have passed causing a legal action to be deemed illegal.

Fact... Child Molesters generally commit crimes against children they have access to, not random children walking down the street.

Personally, I'm more concerned about theives, druggies, dealers, and gang members in my neighborhood. Sex Offender laws are done for the same reason you see politicos talking about how much money they funneled into a region. It has nothing to do with proper government, laws, or does anything to fix the problem, but it looks good on paper, and that brings in votes.

Rocketboy said...

Fact... Sex Offenders have one of the LOWEST recidivism rate.

Fact... Sex Offender does not equal child molester.

Fact... Some people deemed sex offenders had consentual sex with someone just a few years different from their own age. And in some extreme cases, there have been people labled as Sex Offenders because they had a birthday. Not because their partener became younger, but because a few days have passed causing a legal action to be deemed illegal.

Fact... Child Molesters generally commit crimes against children they have access to, not random children walking down the street.

Personally, I'm more concerned about theives, druggies, dealers, and gang members in my neighborhood. Sex Offender laws are done for the same reason you see politicos talking about how much money they funneled into a region. It has nothing to do with proper government, laws, or does anything to fix the problem, but it looks good on paper, and that brings in votes.

Paladin said...

So, you're in favor of having sex offenders in your neighborhood, Rocketboy?

Why don't you post your address then? I have friends who work in the State Division of Parole...maybe we can work something out for you.

Rocketboy said...

I'm not in 'favor' of any criminal living in my neighborhood.

But it happens REGARDLESS of the type of criminal.

And it is not very likely that a Sex Offender will commit another sex crime, much less on a complete stranger (despite what the media and the politicos tell you, because otherwise, well, doesn't get votes or viewers).

So, in summary, given a choice between a Gang-Banger, a Drug Dealer, or a person who falls under the overly large umbrella of Sex Offender (sex offender =/= child rapist), yes, I would rather have a Sex Offender in my neighborhood.

So I'll take the sex offenders, as long as you take the druggies/dealers and gang members (and of course we can't know who's who, or that would ruin it), and we'll see which of us wants to move after a year.

R said...

I was advised of this commentary today so I have to express my sentiments. Compared to all five (5) bloggers that posted comments, I can say with no doubt that I have more knowledge of these offenders than all of you put together. I have made arrests that have resulted in federal and state convictions for sex crimes, mostly CP cases. I am one of these individuals responsible for for monitoring sex offenders and holding them accountable. As I explain to most lay persons, sex offenders are on a continuum: the knucklehead on one end and the predator on the other end. I supervise all like they are predators until I get to know them, which includes via regular polygraph testing, unannounced visits, treatment intervention, etc. Some sex offender registrants (SORs) are bad dudes (all gals too). Some aren't. Regarding the invective toward the Niagara County Probation Director, I know Anthony Mauro personally -- I call him a friend. First, he was misquoted. I love reading crime blotters regarding my arrests because 80%+ are screwed up and inaccurate. Remember, papers need to sensationalize to sell themselves; some are just errors because journalists do not know the legal system and how it operates. His (Mauro's) reference was regarding inept local ordinances, not the state law (which only covers SORs on community supervision - i.e., probation or parole). Local ordinances are comical--period. Take the Town of Niagara ordinance for SOR residency requirements. "Fear the sex offender creeping in your neighborhood as he will molest your children!" Those SORs contemplating such acts want to commit felonies. Their urges to commit such actions are done with the disregard for the prospective penalties for successful prosecution of such felonious acts. But wait, local ordinances will protect us. Why? Because they serve as deterrents from SORs thinking about committing such crimes. A SOR will unlikely commit a felony which they can serve multiple years in prison because of such TOUGH local ordinances. In the Town of Niagara, a SOR in violation of the local ordinance will get up to 15 days in jail! Yes, 15 days!! You are telling me a SOR who wants to commit a felony is going to think twice about committing such an act because of a possible 15 day sentence? Trust me, if a SOR wants your kid, it does not matter if he/she lives 10 feet away or 10,000 feet away. Second, most predatory sex offenses are committed by those known to the victim. Worry about the over-zealous neighbor, coach, relative, as much as the convicted sex offender. I never condone a sex crime including the statutory horny 19 year-old getting it on with the underage adolescent who cannot consent by law but agrees to such sexual relations. But let's be clear, lumping all SORs into the same class is like calling all priests pedophiles. Anthony Mauro, irrespective if you agree with his salary, is not soft on crime. He is a proactive member of law enforcement with a tough job. He repeatedly gets funding cut and has to do more with less (as evidenced by new DWI requirements imposed by Albany with no funding measures). He is not a moron. He was (1) misquoted but (2) more or less wise in telling lay persons that local ordinances are often inconsistent and inept. Read the local ordinances and think, does this really protect my neighborhood? Then, after making a determination, then call my friend a moron if you still feel the same way. Moreover, by all means, call me a bigger moron but who knows the facts, not just one who relies on political rhetoric.

Dinah said...

Nice site, very informative. I like to read this.,it is very helpful in my part for my criminal law studies.