Not now! The neighbors are watching!

[Vandiablo]

As someone who currently prefers a good nap to good sex*, and who only gets to nap while in a car,
I find this deeply disturbing.

Caught in a Neighborhood Web
Innocent Man Mistaken For Registered Offender

By Fredrick Kunkle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 13, 2006; Page A01

It all seemed darkly funny at first.

Eric Haskett was merely taking a nap in a car when he roused suspicion in a rural Frederick County neighborhood. A neighbor traced Haskett's license plate to an address once used by a registered sex offender.

Then his girlfriend's parents told him to scram; law enforcement officials, including three FBI agents, began investigating; and Haskett began fearing that the suspicions could cost him his job at a gag shop that sells such kid-friendly items as whoopie cushions.

"It blew me away that a federal agent was sticking a badge in my face. Three agents, dog -- like I'm the ringleader!" said Haskett, 28, of Mount Airy.

After allaying the concerns of several law enforcement officials over the past few weeks, Haskett also asked them what he could do to clear his name.

"They said the best bet is to leave the area," Haskett said.

Haskett has no criminal record and has not been accused of wrongdoing, according to public court records and law enforcement officials. The confusion arose after he rented a room in a house on Liberty Road where convicted sex offender Donald M. Sanders had also rented a room; the sex offender registry listed only the house address, not room numbers.

Sanders moved out about the time Haskett moved in, and the two men had no other connection, according to interviews with them, their landlord and law enforcement officials.

Special Agent Michelle Crnkovich, a spokeswoman for the FBI's Baltimore office, said agents interviewed Haskett and determined that the incident was a mix-up. Cpl. Jennifer Bailey of the Frederick County Sheriff's Office said her agency also looked into the matter. And so did Sgt. Palmer Grotte of the Maryland State Police, who said he received an e-mail that started the incident. It is not clear how neighbors obtained information about Haskett from his car's license plates -- information that is protected by privacy laws.

Barry Leahy, who rented the rooms to Sanders and Haskett, said the incident points out the potential abuses of sex offender registries.

"I see that convicted sexual offenders should be available on a police list. I can't see that people should have access to that list and hold that against him," Leahy, 54, said. "There's too much of this throwing stuff around on the Internet."

Stefani Shuster, who acknowledged in a telephone interview that she wrote the e-mail that put the events in motion, said she had the best intentions.

"I have a family to protect," said Shuster, 39. "My original e-mail was to inform people."

Sex offender registries are designed to alert the public about possible threats in the neighborhood. Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) recently signed into law more stringent restrictions on punishing and monitoring sex offenders, and several other legislatures, including Maryland's, considered similar measures.

But the registries also have led to cases of mistaken identity and abuses since President Bill Clinton signed the 1996 law requiring states to keep tabs on sex offenders. Last month, two convicted sex offenders in Maine were tracked through the state's registry and shot to death.

Haskett's case of mistaken identity began in late March when he went to see his girlfriend in Summerfield, a housing development in New Market. The neighborhood was on edge from reports a month earlier about a strange car lurking in the cul-de-sacs.

Haskett was supposed to meet his girlfriend, Ali Huenger, 20, for dinner but arrived early. He said he knew her mother was home, but he was so tired that he worried he would fall asleep the moment he sat down. So he napped in his car down the street.

A few days later, Shuster sent her e-mail to neighbors: "Many of you have probably heard over the past month of an older gray box-style car that has been hanging out at odd times in Summerfield. He was seen again between Cairo and Emmaline last week around 4:30-5:00 p.m."

The e-mail said the license plate number was given to police and traced to Haskett. The e-mail also noted that the Maryland Sex Offender Registry showed Haskett living at the same Liberty Road address as Sanders, the convicted sex offender.

"He [Sanders] is most likely living with and borrowing this car from Haskett," the e-mail said. "Please pass on this e-mail to as many people as you know in this neighborhood."

Sanders was convicted of having sex with a 14-year-old boy in Mount Airy nearly six years ago and sentenced to five years' probation, Carroll County Circuit Court documents say.

"I moved because I was sick of being a moving target," Sanders, 41, said in an interview.

Law enforcement officials said he did not update his address until April 7, but there is no evidence that he borrowed Haskett's car or prowled the neighborhood.

Meanwhile, word of a possible child molester spread in Summerfield. Members of the community handed out fliers at Deer Crossing Elementary School. The local PTSA president was alerted.

"Don't [mess] with suburbia, because we will chew you up and spit you out," said Summerfield resident Scottie C. Burdette, 45, a mother of five, including Haskett's girlfriend. "Believe me, I got that e-mail about 20 times, so you can imagine how this exploded."

Then Burdette realized that her daughter's new boyfriend, Haskett, was named in the e-mail.

"I was a junkyard dog, instantly," Burdette said. "I told Ali, 'Eric's got some questions to answer for me.' "

Her gut feeling was that Haskett was not a sex offender. But Burdette said she worried that he might be hanging around with one.

"Those people don't get rehabilitated," Burdette said. "That's part of the reason I handled this the way I did."

She said she feels sorry for Haskett -- but only a little. Vigilance is necessary, she said. She also thinks Haskett should examine the conduct that started the incident.

"Certainly, he could check out a book from the library on dinnertime etiquette," Burdette said. "He's not a pimply-faced teenager. He could have come to the door that night like a grown-up."

Staff researcher Bobbye Pratt contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

-V
Periodical Archivist
The Forsaken Inn

*They are both carefully regulated by my wife, as is my time. Since my napping wouldn't serve much purpose to her (and probably would only infuriate her) my nap allocation is just slightly above zero. So, once or twice a year or so, I leave work an hour early, park in a parking lot, and zzzZZZzzz... ah heaven ... zzzZZZzzz...

[Nystul]

As far as I'm concerned, the guy got off easy!

I took a nap in my car once, and woke up in a ditch. The good news was that I was still in the car. The bad news is that the bottom half of the car was not still in the car. Next time perhaps I'll try parking the car before the nap.

[Alram]

the sex offender registry listed only the house address, not room numbers.

What about a large apartment building where thousands live?

She said she feels sorry for Haskett -- but only a little. Vigilance is necessary, she said. She also thinks Haskett should examine the conduct that started the incident.

"Certainly, he could check out a book from the library on dinnertime etiquette," Burdette said. "He's not a pimply-faced teenager. He could have come to the door that night like a grown-up."

Sounds like this could be a potential mother-in-law from hell. I'd advise him to get a new girlfriend.

[Munkay]

Sounds like this could be a potential mother-in-law from hell. I'd advise him to get a new girlfriend.

Agreed. After seeing her response, I can understand why he decided to stay in his car and take a nap. I wouldn't want to deal with her either.

Cheers,

Munk

[Vandiablo]

Agreed.  After seeing her response, I can understand why he decided to stay in his car and take a nap.  I wouldn't want to deal with her either.

Cheers,

Munk
[right][snapback]109785[/snapback][/right]

Furthermore, I think she's wrong... I thought the guideline was that you should never be more than 5 minutes early. It's worse than being more than 5 minutes late.

-V

Reservations Clerk
The Forsaken Inn

[Tal]

hahahaha that was just down the road from where I live in Maryland. And I agree with Alram and Munkay - I can see why he would avoid the Mom in that case. I believe I would be inclined to drive around for a bit and come back when girlfriend is home. ;)

[Drasca]

I can see why he would avoid the Mom in that case.
[right][snapback]109800[/snapback][/right]

Well, if anyone needs it, I have proof that Mother in Law's are poison. Just scroll down, and you'll see your Mother in Law there listed undeniably as bad to keep around.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Well, if anyone needs it, I have proof that Mother in Law's are poison. Just scroll down, and you'll see your Mother in Law there listed undeniably as bad to keep around.
[right][snapback]109813[/snapback][/right]

Ah, the good old dieffenbachia. Actually, old diff is a good mother-in-law, :) just chop up couple of leaves and serve them in a salad to the other mother-in-law for a few hours of peace and quiet. Or, at least, that's what I've been told is the source of the name. :whistling:

--Pete

[Mithrandir]

She said she feels sorry for Haskett -- but only a little. Vigilance is necessary, she said. She also thinks Haskett should examine the conduct that started the incident.

"Certainly, he could check out a book from the library on dinnertime etiquette," Burdette said. "He's not a pimply-faced teenager. He could have come to the door that night like a grown-up."

I like how she absolves herself of blame... "It's not my fault I overreacted and made this man's life miserable, he shouldn't have been napping." Bwah?

Just another case of how the sex offender registery is a joke. You serve your time, you are released, you are free... oh wait, no. Either you are rehabilitated and ready to become a productive member of society or you aren't. I fail to see the gray area here.

Plus, having sex with a 17 year old when you are 18 or peeing behind a building gets you thrown on a list with serial rapists and pedophiles?

[Guest]

Yes and no.

I agree the current implematation of the registry is a joke.
I also agree that statutory rape of consenting teenager is wrong but should not be on any list.

Being on a list for life should be part of the sentence delt to real pediphiles and rapists. But the list should be more carefully maintained.
You point about about rehabilitaion is stupid or naive on your part. Real pediphiles are not rehabilitated they are controled. Its too expensive to keep them in jail for life.

[Rinnhart]

You point about about rehabilitaion is stupid or naive on your part.

This- this is why we can't have nice things.

[Taem]

You point about about rehabilitaion is stupid or naive on your part.
[right][snapback]109831[/snapback][/right]

This- this is why we can't have nice things.
[right][snapback]109831[/snapback][/right]

Actually, I fully agree with Ghost here. It seems to me that your response, Rinnhart, is meant as a plea for leinency on Ghost's opinion of the other posters opinion. While harsh, it is too the point. You see, the "justice" system itself is confused on what the difference is between Punishment, and Rehabilitation. Why even bother "hiding" away those who can't or don't deserve rehabilitation? Why not bring them to "Justice"? What is justice? IMO, it's payback in full for whatever crime was commited, thus eye-for-an-eye.

To be honest, this subject has been rolled over and over so many times recently, I feel I must bow out of the rest of this conversation. I just couldn't help but comment on your nit about Ghost's post.

[Rinnhart]

It's a "plea" for civility.

And they're stating the same damn thing.

[Vandiablo]

This- this is why we can't have nice things.

It's a "plea" for civility.
[right][snapback]109857[/snapback][/right]

Thanks, Rinn. You gave me a good laugh (with the "nice things" line).

I had the same feeling about civility, and the way you expressed it was funny. I applaud you.

I'm sure I've heard that line before, but I can't remember where....

I empathize with the line. I'm the father of two 2-yr-old boys, and one of them is the Curious George type. Actually, he's not 2 for another month and a half, and he already carries around platforms to use to Get Into Things. (He uses chairs, scooters, sturdy toys, smaller twin brothers, tables, large stuffed animals, whatever he can stand on and move across the floor.) He is our current Reason We Can't Have Nice Things.

(We have our Nice Things locked away ... but I'm sure when the boy is four he will be able to remove hinges...)

-V
Safety Officer
The Forsaken Inn

[Mithrandir]

Being on a list for life should be part of the sentence delt to real pediphiles and rapists. But the list should be more carefully maintained.
You point about about rehabilitaion is stupid or naive on your part. Real pediphiles are not rehabilitated they are controled. Its too expensive to keep them in jail for life.

It is "stupid or naive" to state that rehabilitation is possible for pedophiles? Apparently the ~20 studies I just googled disagree with you. Is rehabilitation 100% effective? Of course not, but nothing is.

If someone is still a danger to society, then they should not be allowed back into society and still be undergoing treatment. Period. Some "magic list" isn't going to solve any problems. If someone is not a danger to society and is rehabilitated, then they need to be allowed to live as normal a life as possible once their debt to society has been paid.

Why not bring them to "Justice"? What is justice? IMO, it's payback in full for whatever crime was commited, thus eye-for-an-eye.

The current situation is the farthest thing possible from justice. Individuals who served their appointed sentence in full are placed on lists that allow them to be hunted down and murdered. Lists that catch innocents in the crossfire and ruin their lives. I fail to see how making it impossible for a rehabilitated individual to get a fresh start on life is "justice".

I must say that I am quite impressed how much everyone loves Hammurabi around here. I thought that human beings had pretty much decided that his Code didn't actually work all that well a couple thousand years ago, but whatever.

[Occhidiangela]

It is "stupid or naive" to state that rehabilitation is possible for pedophiles? Apparently the ~20 studies I just googled disagree with you. Is rehabilitation 100% effective? Of course not, but nothing is.

I must say that I am quite impressed how much everyone loves Hammurabi around here. I thought that human beings had pretty much decided that his Code didn't actually work all that well a couple thousand years ago, but whatever.
[right][snapback]109865[/snapback][/right]

On your first point, amen. Sentence served, leave them alone. Or, execute them as a sentence. (That was not meant as a deraliment into death penalty discussion. Let's please not go there.) At root, this is not equal protection under the law, as some criminals' service of sentence is now significantly more unequal than others. It is as stupid as mandatory sentencing guidelines and "Three strikes you are out" foolishness.

On your second point, you might want to wander away from the confines of the Tower of Pachyderm Tusks. Most human beings still consider "justice" to include payback. A small portion do not. They have gotten their idea out rather widely. That doesn't mean most human beings buy it, all it means is that someone is selling it. ;)

The Bob Dylan lyric about Justice being a game fits here, albeit completely out of context regarding the song's topic.

Occhi

[Guest]

You contridict yourself(and misrepresent me.)
The misrepresentaion is you make it appear I championed Hammurabi's code - which is not the case.
But enough on that, lets focus on your mistake..

You say-
"...then they need to be allowed to live as normal a life as possible once their debt to society has been paid."
and
"You serve your time, you are released, you are free... "

You feel that by serving your sentence you are esentially even again with society and your past crimes dont matter. This directly implies a finallity and aceptance of the legal sentence by society. A legitmate position, whether or not its correct.

But then you say-
"Either you are rehabilitated and ready to become a productive member of society or you aren't."
and
"If someone is still a danger to society, then they should not be allowed back into society and still be undergoing treatment."

Both of these statments contridict your first sentence because they mean ignoring the sentence and focusing on the condition of the idividual.
The basis of your argument refuttes itself - that sounds STUPID to me.




And a word on the legal system. It can serve 4 possible purposes.
-revenge(a bad purpose IMO)
-deterant(a great purpose IMO, as long as people are not disenfranchised before they enter into crime)
-rehabilitaion(a nice idea, but impossible to determine IMO)
-removal(effective but exspensive and maybe not "fair" IMO)

It seems havent seperated these in your mind - you should.
You seems NAIVE because you feel that people can reasonably tell who is and isnt rehailitaed. You are even more NAIVE because you dont realize that subjective questions like that the easiest way for criminals to punished far beyond the law.




There is no way to tell if a pediphile is rehabilitaed or not. Released pediphiles given the oppertunity have a large "relapse" rate. Even if it was just 5% is would be huge. I consider it NAIVE to leave this to chance.
I consider the "list" to be a life sentence and a fair sentence.
But I would also consider laser etching a "P" on their forhead to be fair.

There are some compacts with society that if broken you you should accept dire marking because society cant afford to trust you.

[Mithrandir]

You contridict yourself(and misrepresent me.)
The misrepresentaion is you make it appear I championed Hammurabi's code - which is not the case.

Erm, I quoted MEAT and then responded to him Ghost... that part of my reply was not directed towards you at all.

You say-
"...then they need to be allowed to live as normal a life as possible once their debt to society has been paid."
and
"You serve your time, you are released, you are free... "

You just feel that by serving your sentence you are esential even again with socety and your past crimes dont matter. This dirctly implies the finallaty and aceptaance of the legal sentence by soociety.

But then you say-
"Either you are rehabilitated and ready to become a productive member of society or you aren't."
and
"If someone is still a danger to society, then they should not be allowed back into society and still be undergoing treatment."

Both of these statments contridict your first sentence because they mean ignoring the sentence and focusing on the condition of the idividual.

I fail to see how they contradict. You are removed society (i.e. imprisoned or placed in some type of mental health facility), undergo treatment, and then are released when you have completed said treatment and are adequately rehabilitated. Once you are released (i.e. paid your debt to society) you deserve to be left alone and be free. The whole point is that the "sentence" is a function of the individual's treatment.

The basis of your argument refuttes itself - that sounds STUPID to me.
And a word on the legal system. It can serve 4 possible purposes.
-revenge(a bad purpose IMO)
-deterant(a great purpose IMO, as long as people are not disenfranchised before they enter into crime)
-rehabilitaion(a nice idea but impossible to determine IMO)
-removal(effective but exspensive)

Rehabilitation is certainly difficult to determine, but not impossible... these medical health professionals are trained to figure such things out. Your assertion that rehabilitation is impossible to determine or absolutely ineffective seems to be not grounded in fact.

There are some compacts with society that if broken you you should accept dire marking because society cant aford to have you repeat.

The "dire marking" has little effect on the pedophile's ability to repeat his actions, though... the relapse rate for pedophiles is 20-25% untreated (depending upon which source you read) even with this "dire marking" penalty in place.

Even preliminary tests have shown that treatment regimens (whther chemical or psychological) have proven quite effective. We need to stop hoping that a couple years in prison and a list that damns both the rehabilitated and unrehabilitated is enough to magically fix this problem. Pedophiles need treatment.

[Rinnhart]

You contridict yourself(and misrepresent me.)
The misrepresentaion is you make it appear I championed Hammurabi's code - which is not the case.
But enough on that, lets focus on your mistake..

You say-
"...then they need to be allowed to live as normal a life as possible once their debt to society has been paid."
and
"You serve your time, you are released, you are free... "

You just feel that by serving your sentence you are esential even again with socety and your past crimes dont matter. This dirctly implies the finallaty and aceptaance of the legal sentence by soociety.

But then you say-
"Either you are rehabilitated and ready to become a productive member of society or you aren't."
and
"If someone is still a danger to society, then they should not be allowed back into society and still be undergoing treatment."

Both of these statments contridict your first sentence because they mean ignoring the sentence and focusing on the condition of the idividual.
The basis of your argument refuttes itself - that sounds STUPID to me.

All law that is defined by it's consequences is fundamentally Hammurabian in nature.

The Code was not "An Eye for an Eye" it was:

The punishment should fit the crime contingent on the circumstances of the events in question and the nature of the involved individuals. The punishment should result in the social absolution of the perpetrator.

There is no contradiction in Mithandir's statements, there is only the convoluted reality of our world.

And a word on the legal system. It can serve 4 possible purposes.
-revenge(a bad purpose IMO)
-deterant(a great purpose IMO, as long as people are not disenfranchised before they enter into crime)
-rehabilitaion(a nice idea but impossible to determine IMO)
-removal(effective but exspensive)

It seems havent seperated these in your mind - you should.
You seems NAIVE because you feel that people can reasonably tell who is and isnt rehailitaed. You are even more NAIVE because you dont realize that subjective questions like that the easiest way for criminals to punished far beyond the law.
There is no way to tell if a pediphile is rehabilitaed or not. Released pediphiles given the oppertunity have a large "relapse" rate. Even if it was just 5% is would be huge. I consider it NAIVE to leave this to chance.
I consider the list to be a life sentence and a fair sentence.
But I would also consider lazer etching a "P" on their forhead to be fair.

There are some compacts with society that if broken you you should accept dire marking because society cant aford to have you repeat.
-
[right][snapback]109881[/snapback][/right]

And you are naively oversimplifying. I won't even begin to touch your "PURPOSES OF DA LEGAL SYSTEM."

The murderer's brand or the theive's lost hand may have once been acceptable punishments, but this is a society where harassment, slander, and libel are themselves crimes. To provide the means to persue criminal activity is to condone criminal activity; these lists aren't being used for some greater good, they're being used to single out individuals who have paid their debts to society.

The laws that govern punishment regarding specific offenses are often dated by old beliefs and ideals, but that means the Law must be changed and updated, not that the system should be circumvented by additional transgressions, or worse, vigilantism.

[Guest]

You arent even making sense.

My major problem with Mith is that hes confusing rehabilitaion with punishment. And I clearly pointed out him doing just that.

That was the contridiction.

Both are valid concepts(irregardless of effectivness.) Both might even be effectively used in conjunction. But they are not the same.


Im really not even going to address what you said beyond the first "paragraph because your rejoined was to flawed to worry about anything built on it.