Thus, treatment of children who have never been convicted of a sex offense is illegal experimentation on human subjects.
Moreover, I wrote about the use of plethysmography by Kirkwood's chosen "expert" in the field of "sex offender treatment", the now-late Dr. Richard Hamill, see blogposts here, here, here and here.
I have an experience where a person (my husband's client) who was not convicted of a sex offense, was sent to jail for 4 years by the now Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael Coccoma, the rescuer of pretty-face corrupt judges or judicial candidates.
When I was admitted to the bar and while that person was still in jail, he was held in child neglect (around 2010) for failure to comply with Dr. Hamill requirements for a sex offender evaluation (illegal, because the person was not a convicted sex offender) that included plethysmography (a "penile lie detector"), at the price tag of $600 - which our indigent client, obviously, did not have.
I recently found a legal blog describing a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, a court, which has a policy to rubber-stamp dismissals of civil rights appeals by summary orders, but dedicated a full-blown opinion to a father who engaged in making pictures of his nude daughter "for her modeling career", convicted of a sex offense, convicted of failure to register as a sex offender, and sentenced, as part of post-release supervision, to sex offender treatment that included plethysmography evaluation.
The blog is well-written and funny (even though constitutional violations involved are definitely not funny).
By the way, I found the blog because I was researching background of the 2nd Circuit federal appellate judge, B.D. Parker, who refused to provide a full appellate review (required by law) of my husband's civil rights appeal. A judge held a soft spot in his heart for sex offenders, giving a sex offender a full opinion on appeal while denying civil rights appeals the right to full statutory appellate review.
According to sex offender-sympathizing 2nd Circuit, subjecting individuals to plethysmography, even when they are convicted sex offenders, is a violation of their substantive due process.
Yet, New York continues to use the technique, and Porter Kirkwood happily announced to the public that the user of that technique was invited to "design" a program of "sex offender treatment" to non-sex offender captive children in foster care in Delaware County, as described in the blogs interlinked above.
If the use of plethysmography is unconstitutional with convicted sex offenders, holding a non-sex offender in child neglect for refusing to submit to that stuff, and sending a person to jail for 4 years for refusing to submit to that stuff, is definitely unconstitutional.
As is submitting children to this voyeuristic procedure that involves criminal sexual abuse of children.
Since Kirkwood was so proud of the program as recently as in November of 2015, most likely, the "program" of sexual child abuse by Delaware County of children in foster care continues at this time.
At taxpayers' expense.
And, Kirkwood is not the only one who is engaged, at taxpayers' expense, in sex abuse of children, in subjecting children to what the court has ruled is an unconstitutional practice even with convicted adult sex offenders.
Look at the "research" done on 132 "adolescent sex offenders" (children!) pre-"treatment" and post-"treatment".
Here are some portions from the decision of the 2nd Circuit.
Good for sex offenders that three male judges took to heart the sex offenders' humiliation in "having the size and rigidity of their penis measured". Senior-age and senior-status male judges like the ones who decided the case could clearly identify with such a humiliation.
To the point of thinking that the use of plethysmography is more important an issue to dedicate more time to it in a full-opinion appellate decision than civil rights appeals affirmed left and right by the same judges through "summary orders", without any review of facts or law.
Apparently, judges in the 2nd Circuit choose cases for full opinions for their entertaining qualities?
And - two years after the 2nd Circuit has declared the practice unconstitutional, it is still used for adult sex offenders, and for sexual abuse by the government of captive children.
No comments:
Post a Comment