Chapter 30. Registration

I wrote this chapter sharing what occurred with registering as a sex offender because there is much to tell of what I experienced and wanted to treat it completely without intermixing it with other information, because it is important to understand what it was I went through and how it would affect me later.

Apparently after the probation officer in Middletown received the Order of the Court, it was written I would have to register as a sex offender with the state I lived.  I never wanted to do this and feared having to do it but comfortable I would be classified a low number and not have to concern myself with being placed on the Internet for all to see.  I was instructed to go to the Town of Poughkeepsie Police Department and see the officer in charge.  He greeted me pleasantly and took me through the process of fingerprinting and picture taking and signing documentation.  He could not put me in the system because I hadn’t been classified and learned it would be determined through the court system but was comfortable when advised I would be given a “Level 1” classification because I had no aggression in this criminal offense or in my history.  I was pleased to hear this and felt confident this process would not have too much interruption in my life.

September 15, 2005, I received the assessment conducted by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, which is as follows:

State of New York

Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders

1220 Washington Avenue

Albany, NY 12226-2050

 

TO:     Roy Martin

ALKA INN, ROOM 213

2349 SOUTH ROAD

POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 12601

NYSID# OR BOARD ID#:  4379752K

FROM:   BOARD EXAMINER,    STEPHEN D. WEBER

RE:     Board Determination and Risk Level Recommendation

DATE:   09/15/2005

Pursuant to the New York State Offender Registration Act, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders has reviewed your conviction in another jurisdiction and has determined that you are required to register with the New York State Sex Offender Registry.  You will receive a registration form for completion and signature from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services Sex Offender Registry or, if you are under supervision, from your supervising agency.

The Board based its determination on the following:

  1. The crime for which you were convicted in the other jurisdiction meets the definition of “sex offense” as set forth in Correction Law Section 168-a(2) because it is:
  • ____ a conviction of an offense in any other jurisdiction which includes the essential elements of any such crime provided for in Correction Law Section 168-a(2)(a); OR
  • __X_ a conviction of an offense in any jurisdiction for which you are required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred; OR
  • ____ a conviction under 18 U.S.C.2251, U.S.C.2251A, U.S.C.2252, U.S.C.2252A, U.S.C.2260.
  1. The crime for which you were convicted in the other jurisdiction meets the definition of “sexually violent offense” as set forth in Correction Law Section 168-a(3) because it is:
  • ____ a conviction of an offense in any other jurisdiction which includes the essential elements of any such felony provided for in Correction Law Section 168-a(3)(a),the comparable New York State; OR
  • ____ a conviction of an felony in any other jurisdiction for which you are required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred.

Attached for your review is the risk level recommendation made by the Board.  The Board has also forwarded its risk level recommendation to the Court and District Attorney in the jurisdiction in which you currently reside.

Please note that all relevant information considered by the Board has been forwarded to the Court.  At least 20 days prior to the determination proceeding, the Court will send you notification of the date of the hearing.  You will be advised of the right to be represented by counsel at the hearing and that counsel will be appointed if it is determined that you are financial unable to retain counsel.

This is the final decision of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders.  If you are aggrieved by this final decision, you may commence a proceeding for judicial review in accordance with Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

The following is the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders’ recommendation pursuant to Section 168-1 of Article 6-C of the NYS Correction Law as to whether the offender shall be designated a Sexually Violent Offender, Predicate Sex Offender, or Sexual Predator as defined in subdivision seven of Section 168-a or whether the offender does not fit any of those categories due to his conviction.

Please check all that apply:

  1. ___  Sexually Violent Offender – a sex offender who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense defined in Correction Law section 168-a(3).

Please check which conviction(s) apply, also please indicate whether the conviction was for an attempt at an offense:

Attempt

 

___ ___    130.35 – Rape 1st degree

___ ___    130.50 – Sodomy 1st degree/Criminal Sexual Act 1st degree

___ ___    130.65 – Sexual Abuse 1st degree

___ ___    130.66 – Aggravated sexual abuse 3rd degree

___ ___    130.67 – Aggravated sexual abuse 2nd degree

___ ___    130.70 – Aggravated sexual abuse 1st degree

___ ___    130.75 – Course of sexual conduct against a child 1st degree

___ ___    130.80 – Course of sexual conduct against a child 2nd degree

___ ___    130.53 – Persistent sexual abuse

___ ___    130.65-a – Aggravated sexual abuse 4th degree

___ ___    130.90 – Facilitating a sex offense with a controlled substance

___ ___    a conviction of or a conviction for an attempt to commit any provisions of the foregoing sections committed or attempted as a hate crime defined in Section 485.05 of the penal law or as a crime of terrorism defined in Section 490.25 of such law.

___ ___    a conviction of an offense in any other jurisdiction which includes all of the essential elements of any such felony provided for above or conviction of a felony in any other jurisdiction for which the offender is required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction which the conviction occurred.

  1. ___  Predicate Sex Offender – a sex offender who has been convicted of an offense set forth in subdivision 2 or 3 of Correction Law Section 168-a when the offender has been previously convicted of an offense set forth in subdivision 2 or 3 of Section 168-a, regardless of the date of the prior conviction and regardless of whether the offender was required to register for the previous conviction.

Please identify below the offenders previous qualifying conviction(s) as well as the offender’s current qualifying conviction, also please indicate whether the conviction was for an attempt at an offense:

Current    Previous   Attempt

___        ___        ___       130.20 – Sexual Misconduct

___        ___        ___       130.25 – Rape 3rd degree

___        ___        ___       130.30 – Rape 2nd degree

___        ___        ___       130.40 – Sodomy 3rd degree/Criminal Sexual Act

___        ___        ___       130.45 – Sodomy 2nd degree/Criminal Sexual Act

___        ___        ___       130.60 – Sexual Abuse 2nd degree

___        ___        ___       255.25 – Incest

___        ___        ___       Article 263 offense – Sexual Performance by a Child

___        ___        ___       135.05[1] – Unlawful Imprisonment 2nd degree

___        ___        ___       135.10 – Unlawful Imprisonment 1st degree

___        ___        ___       135.20 – Kidnapping 2nd degree

___        ___        ___       125.25 – Kidnapping 1st degree

___        ___        ___       230.04 – Patronizing a prostitute 3rd degree (victim <17 years old)

___        ___        ___       230.05 – Patronizing a prostitute 2nd degree

___        ___        ___       230.05 – Patronizing a prostitute 1st degree

___        ___        ___       230.30(2) – Promoting prostitution 2nd degree

___        ___        ___       230.32 – Promoting prostitute 1st degree

___        ___        ___       235.22 – Disseminating indecent material to minors 1st degree

___        ___        ___       a conviction of or a conviction for an attempt to commit any provisions of a listed sex offense committed or attempted as a hate crime defined in Section 485.05 of the penal law or as a crime of terrorism defined in Section 490.25 of such law.

___        ___        ___       130.52 – Forcible touching (victim <18 years old)

___        ___        ___       130.55 – Sexual abuse 3rd degree (victim <18 years old)

___        ___        ___       Conviction/Attempt to commit any provision of 130.52 or 130.55 of the penal law regardless of age of victim and the offender has previously been convicted of: (i) a sex offense listed in Correction Law Section 168-a(2), or (ii) a sexually violent offense listed in Correction Law Section 168-a(3), or (iii) any of the provisions of Section 130.52 or 130.55 of the penal law or an attempt

thereof.

___        ___        ___       A conviction of (i) an offense in any other jurisdiction which includes all of the essential elements of any such crime provided for in Correction Section Law 168-a(2)(a), or (ii) a felony in any other jurisdiction for which the offender is required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred, or (iii) any of the provisions of 18U.S.C. 2251, 18U.S.C. 2251A, 18U.S.C. 2252, 18U.S.C. 2252A, or 18U.S.C. 2260 provided the element of such crime of conviction are substantially the same as those which are part of such offense as of March 11, 2002.

___        ___        ___       130.35 – Rape 1st degree

___        ___        ___       130.50 – Sodomy 1st degree/Criminal Sexual Act 1st degree

___        ___        ___       130.65 – Sexual Abuse 1st degree

___        ___        ___       130.66 – Aggravated sexual abuse 3rd degree

___        ___        ___       130.67 – Aggravated sexual abuse 2nd degree

___        ___        ___       130.70 – Aggravated sexual abuse 1st degree

___        ___        ___       130.75 – Course of sexual conduct against a child 1st degree

___        ___        ___       130.80 – Course of sexual conduct against a child 2nd degree

___        ___        ___       130.53 – Persistent sexual abuse

___        ___        ___       130.65-a – Aggravated sexual abuse 4th degree

___        ___        ___       130.90 – Facilitating sex offense with a controlled substance

___        ___        ___       a conviction for an attempt to commit any provisions of a sexually violent offense as set forth in Correction Law Section 168-a(3) committed or attempted as a hate crime defined in Section 485.05 of the penal law or as a crime of terrorism defined in Section 490.25 of such law.

___        ___        ___       a conviction of an offense in any other jurisdiction which include all of the essential elements of any such felony provided for above or conviction of a felony in any other jurisdiction for which the offender is required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction which the conviction occurred.

  1. ___ Sexual Predator a sex offender who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense defined in Correction Law Section 168-a(3) and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes him or her likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses.
  1. _X_ None of the above.

 

SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT

 

RISK FACTOR                       VALUE      SCORE

 

I – CURRENT OFFENSE(S)

 

  1. 1.  Use of Violence

Used forcible compulsion     +10

Inflicted physical injury    +15          0

Armed with a dangerous

Instrument                  +30

  1. Sexual Contact with Victim

Contact over clothing        +5

Contact under clothing       +10          0

Sexual intercourse, deviate

Sexual intercourse or

Aggravated sexual abuse      +25

  1. 3.  Number of Victims

Two                          +20          0

Three or more

  1. 4.  Duration of offense conduct

 with victim

Continuing course of sexual  +20          0

Misconduct

  1. 5.  Age of victim

11 through 16                +20

10 or less, 63 or more       +30  X       30

  1. 6.  Other victim characteristics

Victim suffered from mental

disability or incapacity or

from physical helplessness  +20          0

  1. 7.  Relationship with victim

Stranger or established for

purpose of victimizing or

professional relationship   +20          0

 

II CRIMINAL HISTORY

 

RISK FACTOR                       VALUE      SCORE

  1. 8.  Age at first act of sexual

Misconduct

20 or less                   +10          0

  1. 9.  Number and nature of prior

crimes

Prior history/no sex crimes

or felonies                   +5  X        5

Prior history/non-violent

Felony                        +15

Prior violent felony, or

misdemeanor sex crime or

endangering welfare of a

child                         +30

10. Recency of prior offense

Less than 3 years            +10          0

11. Drug or Alcohol abuse

History of abuse             +15 X        15

 

III POST-OFFENSE BEHAVIOR

12. Acceptance of Responsibility

Not accepted responsibility  +10 X        10

Not accepted responsibility/

refused or expelled from

treatment                   +15

13. Conduct while confined/

 Supervised

Unsatisfactory                 +10

Unsatisfactory with sexual

misconduct                    +10          0

 

IV RELEASE ENVIRONMENT

RISK FACTOR                       VALUE      SCORE

 

14. Supervision

Release with specialized

supervision                 0

Release with supervision     +5           0

Release without supervision  +15


15. Living/employment situation

Living or employment

inappropriate               +10          0

TOTAL RISK FACTOR SCORE                      60

 

Level 1  X            Level 2                Level 3

Level 1 (low)      =    0      to +70

Level 2 (moderate) =    +75    to +105

Level 3 (high)     =    +110   to +300

Note:  The Sex Offender Registration Act requires the court or Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders to consider any victim impact statement in determining a sex offender’s level of risk.

Offender Name:     Roy Martin

NYSID #           4379752K

Risk Level:        2

Date:              September 15, 2005

 

  1. Overrides (if any override is circled, offender is presumptively a Level 3)
  2. Offender has a prior felony conviction for a sex crime
  3. Offender inflicted serious physical injury or caused death
  4. The offender has made a recent threat that he will reoffend by committing a sexual or violent crime
  5. There has been a clinical assessment that the offender has a psychological, physical, or organic abnormality that decrease ability to control impulsive sexual behavior
  1. Departure
  1. A departure from the risk level is warranted

X – Yes         No

2.  If yes, circle the appropriate risk level:

1          2-X      3

3.  If yes, explain the basis for departure (See Summary)

CASE SUMMARY

This assessment is based upon a review of the inmate’s file which may include but is not limited to the pre-sentence investigation, prior criminal history and post-offense behavior.

Roy Martin is a forty-eight-year-old sex offender arrested on 9/11/2002 and charged with Possession of Child Pornography.  On 10/29/2003 he pled guilty to two counts of Possession of Child Pornography, 18 USC 2252-a-4-b.  On 1/30/2004 he was sentenced to thirty months in prison, and was released to probation supervision on 11/15/2004.  It is anticipated he will be supervised by Federal probation on a specialized caseload, until his maximum release date of 11/15/2007.

The indictment charges Martin with possession a video and computer diskettes which contained visual depictions of a person under eighteen engaging in sexually explicit conduct that had been mailed, or shipped by any means included computer.  A United States Postal Inspector placed an ad and offered Underground Home Movies of little girls having sex in the internet club known as Naked Florida Teens.  Martin responded and after several conversations, the Inspector offered him eleven movies.  The Inspector mailed a movie containing two pre-pubertal females less than ten years old, one female approximately thirteen or fourteen years old, and one pre-pubertal male less than eleven years old engaged in sexually explicit conduct.  On 9/11/2002 Martin was arrested when he picked up the package.  Martin expressed regret and accepted responsibility for his actions at that time.

Regarding his prior criminal history, on 1/27/1979 he was arrested and convicted of Public Lewdness and received a conditional discharge.  In 1991 he again was arrested for Public Lewdness, pled guilty and was sentenced to a conditional discharge.  Both of these offenses occurred in New York State.  In 1996 in Pennsylvania, he was arrested for Theft and Receiving Stolen Property.  He pled guilty and was sentenced to four days to twenty-three months in jail and fined.  He was also asked to comply with urine testing and drug/alcohol treatment.  In 1997 in Ohio, he was arrested for Voyeurism (two counts), and Importuning (two counts).  He pled guilty and was sentenced to concurrent ten days sentences.  According to the official complaint, for the purposes of sexually arousing or gratifying himself, Martin committed trespass or otherwise invaded the privacy of another.  In 1997 in Ohio, he was charged with Receiving Stolen Property.  He pled guilty and was sentenced to six months in jail.  He was extradited back to Pennsylvania on the theft charges.

As he first smoked marijuana at eight years of age, and continued until 1998, and experimented with amphetamines, LSD, crack and cocaine, he is scored for a history of drug abuse.  Martin stated he never completed a drug abuse program.  Martin also stated he was admitted to many psychological and psychiatric treatment programs, inpatient and outpatient over the years.  He also spoke of attempting suicide.

Martin’s Federal Probation Officer, John Meredith, indicated that Martin’s adjustment to date has been satisfactory.  He is in counseling for both sex offenders and substance abuse.  His conduct while incarcerated in Federal Prison was also satisfactory.

In a letter addressed to the Board, Martin attempts to explain his possession of the child pornography in that he was going to report everything to the police.  He also discuses his diagnosis of “paraphilia” and his forty years of exhibitionism.  Although he says he has accepted responsibility for his actions in his letter, he attempts to explain why he did it, which leads to doubts regarding his sincerity.  Martin indicated he was entrapped, although he had plenty of time where he could have not answered the emails or just ignored them.  He chose to respond, and ordered illegal sexual materials involving children.  As such, he will not be credited with accepting responsibility for his actions.  The Court may want to review his letter and explanation.

Although he scores as a Level 1 Offender, the Board is recommending departure to Level 2.  The Court should note, in a conversation with the Postal Inspector, Martin indicated, “I haven’t been with a young one, but the search goes on every day.”  In addition to possessing the child pornography, he has a history of exhibitionism, and his letter addressed to the Board of Examiners indicate he is not truly sincere in his acceptance of responsibility.

END

I was disappointed to receive this report because of their wanting to make me a Level 2 where it was obvious I qualified as Level 1.  Also, who were they to say I did not take responsibility for my actions when it was the federal judicial system who said I had done so and given me credit accordingly.  I was given a date to appear before a Supreme Court Judge and went to the Office of The Public Defender to seek counsel.

I thought it would be a good omen to be assigned to David “Martin” an attorney who, given the circumstances, thought I had a reasonable argument challenging the findings of the Review Board.  However, it would not only be the challenge of the Review Board I would fight but that of the Office of The District Attorney who wanted to make a case against me, I, too, should be given an even higher level!  From all appearances, it seems the letter I wrote to the Review Board was the contention here.  I would have done better by leaving well enough alone but it was my goal, my sincere goal, to be honest in all my efforts, at this point in my life, and to provide credible additional information they, the State Review Board, would not have privy too.  They were using this information against me!  The Judge refused to go back over whatever the matter was at trial and just concentrate on the matter at hand, which would have been a more accurate measure for determining the proper level for me.  I believe the issue regarding my previous life of exhibitionism and the number of acts committed raised red flags in the minds of those considering me, but this should not have been an issue at hand.  If anything, it demonstrated there was no active aggression against anyone and more than likely would not be.  Also, I contended this life was over for me and EVEN if I did commit such an act again, it is considered a misdemeanor and should not reflect the basis for a higher level.  They, the District Attorney and Judge saw it differently.  It was decided I should be evaluated by a third party.  My attorney had not used this organization before and thought it a good idea to have an outside counseling authority to make the call.  This would turn out to be the biggest mistake of the whole process.  Their report is as follows:

 

 

Family Services

29 North Hamilton Street

Poughkeepsie, NY 12601

845-452-1110

 

Relapse Intervention for Sex Crimes

Intake Assessment Summary

Name Roy Martin Referral Source David Martin/Senior Assistant Public Defender
Age 49 years   Evaluator Janet E. Giudice, LSCW
Date of Birth October 4, 1956 Sex Male
Interview Dates March 14, 2006 March 27, 2006 April 4, 2006

This evaluation was conducted using the standard RISC psychosocial instrument.  In addition, the following documents were reviewed:

  • Town of Poughkeepsie Police Department Investigation Report
  • Town of Poughkeepsie Police Department Accusatory Instrument
  • Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders Risk Assessment Instrument and Case Summary
  • VMC Consulting Services Treatment Progress Report dated July 26, 2005 to December 29, 2005

 

Reason for Referral

Mr. Roy Martin was referred by Senior Assistant Public Defender, David Martin for a psychosexual evaluation to assist the Court in making a determination regarding his sex offender risk level in an upcoming SORA proceeding.  Information concerning Mr. Roy Martin’s risk, treatment needs, and recommended disposition plan is addressed in this evaluation.

 

Background Information

According to the Board Examiner’s Case Summary, Mr. Martin’s sexual offending history is significant for two convictions for Public Lewdness; the one noted above and another in 1979, also in New York State for which he also received a conditional discharge.  Additionally, Mr. Martin was arrested in Ohio in 1997 on two counts of Voyeurism and two counts of Importuning for committing trespass or invading the privacy of another for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying himself.  Most recently, on September 11, 2002, Mr. Martin was arrested and charged with two counts of Possession of Child Pornography (jurisdiction and court not specified in report.)  That offense involved responding to an ad placed by a United States Postal Inspector offering underground home movies of little girls having sex in the internet club known as Naked Florida Teens.  Mr. Martin was arrested when he picked up the package containing the child pornography at the post office.  He was sentenced to 30 months in prison.

The Case Summary states that Mr. Martin cannot be credited with accepting responsibility for his actions due to his explanation for such action.  The Board is recommending a departure from a Level I Offender status to a Level II Offender status.

 

Identifying Information

Mr. Martin is a 49 year-old light-skinned African American male who arrived to his appointments on time.  He was reluctant to schedule his first appointment because he questioned this evaluator’s qualifications.  When told that this evaluator is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker and a member of the Association for the Treatment of Sex Abusers (ATSA), he challenged that he sees a doctor who is a “specialist in sexual behavior” and that he did not feel he should be evaluated by anyone who has anything thing less than a doctoral degree.  When the evaluator suggested that he be referred back to his referral source so he could address his concerns, he acquiesced that he would come into the office one time “to see how it goes.”  When informed that there is a $25 fee for the evaluation, which would take a minimum of three appointments, Mr. Martin stated that he thought the Public Defender should pay for it.  He was told to address this with the Public Defender prior to his initial appointment.  After his first appointment, he agreed to schedule a second appointment since he felt the first appointment went well.  He offered to share his copy of a Psychological Evaluation conducted by his Dr. Jose Pando in Puerto Rico.  He felt the information in that report was essential to this evaluator in completing an accurate assessment.  It was explained that an original copy would be needed.  He agreed to sign his consent for the release of an original copy of the evaluation but cautioned that it would be difficult to obtain.  This evaluator agreed to try to obtain an original copy of that document. Despite this, he faxed a copy of that report to this evaluator the following day, with a message stating that the evaluation was “too costly and too important to be delayed by administrative neglect.”  At the start of his second interview, he also produced an unsolicited 21 page auto-biological time line of his sexual and drug history dating back to 1962.  The information contained in that document has been used in this assessment.

Mental Status

Mr. Martin is a 5 foot, 9 inch 230 pound male of normal appearance.  He impressed as an intelligent, well-spoken, sophisticated man with a persuasive commentary on his present situation.  He came formally dressed in a shirt and tie.  Despite his initial hesitancy to trust this examiner, he was polite and cooperative.  He engaged easily.  His mood was pleasant.  He exhibited a logical and coherent stream of thought that was significant for a cogent intellectual analysis of his sexually deviant behavior.  His affect was appropriate.  Orientation was appropriate for person, place, time and circumstances.  His concentration and memory functions appeared to be well intact.  His associational ability was abstract.  He denied present suicidal or homicidal ideation but admitted to four suicide attempts in the past.  His reading and writing skills were normally developed.  Overall, he appeared to be of average intelligence.  His insight into the emotional basis of his present condition was fair.

Current Case Situation

According to Mr. Martin, he is undergoing this evaluation because the Court is “unsure of a proper classification.”  He stated that the reason that the Court is experiencing this dilemma is because he has given his attorney information that may be questionable.  He believes that the Court would like to know “if my paraphilia has any bearing on the act that was committed.”  In particular, according to Mr. Martin, the Court needs to know if his diagnosis of Paraphilia has anything to do with his crime of Possession of Child Pornography.

Mr. Martin explained that prior to his arrest for Child Pornography, he had been searching on the Internet for “girls-gone-wild-type-videos.”  When he happened upon a site called “Naked Florida Girls,” he thought it was similar material.  To his surprise, it was not what he was looking for but a particular video piqued his interest.  The description of the video read that it had something to do with a person in the act of assaulting someone who was crying.  He stated tearfully that, when he read the description, it reminded him of his past and made him angry because he was abused as a child.  After taking a moment to compose himself, he continued to explain that he ordered a copy of the video with the intention of turning it over to the authorities when he received it.  He stated that his intentions were honorable, that he was not purchasing the video for his own sexual pleasure, and that he was acting as a concerned citizen.  He noted that it was unfortunate that the police arrested him before he had a chance to drive away because they would have seen that he was on his way to the Police Department.

Mr. Martin continued that he has a “sickness” called “paraphilia” which he believes is the result of a traumatic childhood history of sexual, emotional, and physical abuse.  He does not remember the sexual abuse however, although he has attempted to find out.  When he was with his second wife, he attempted to phone his mother to find out what had happened to him in his early childhood to make him behave in the way that he did.  She hung up the phone on him.  Years later, he made a similar attempt to find out from his father but his father responded with similar insensitivity by telling him that it was time to get over it.  He has not spoken to his father since.  However, Mr. Martin finds it particularly uncanny that his younger brother, who lived 483 miles away and with whom he had no contact, was arrested for Public Lewdness the very same month of the very same year that Mr. Martin was arrested for Public Lewdness.

Mr. Martin explained that in 1979, he exposed himself to two women in Wappinger Falls.  He does not know how old the women were but he suspects they were either his age, which was 22 years old or younger, because of his “repulsion” towards older women.  He was arrested for Public Lewdness and sentenced to probation.  He said that exposing himself was a compulsion that began when he was six years old.  He estimates that he has had 72,000 incidents of exposing himself with a “60% success rate.”  By success rate, Mr. Martin means that he was actually capable of getting victims to look at him without being caught.  He has only been caught twice.

The second arrest occurred in October 1991.  He was 34 years old.  This incident involved exposing himself to two female Marist students who were sitting in a parked vehicle.  He received a conditional discharge.

Then, in December 1996, he was arrested for Voyeurism. He was 40 years old.  That incident involved a female who was in a drug rehabilitation program with him.  She was 35 years old.  She regularly undressed in front of her window.  As Mr. Martin described it, “the victim was exploring her exhibitionistic tendencies while I was exploring my voyeuristic tendencies and it was a marriage made in heaven.”  Or so he thought.  He was arrested and charged with Voyeurism and served 10 days in a county jail.

Mr. Martin stated that he started exposing himself at the age of six years old.  By 11 years old, he knew he had a problem with exhibitionism when he found the book “The Exhibitionist” in his mother’s library.  While he was too young to read the book from cover to cover, he remembers looking through the book and being able to relate to certain things in it.

Mr. Martin believes that he has been “cured” of his “sickness”.  He stated that he “was sick” but now he is “healed”.  He credits Dr. Pando’s evaluation with the start of his healing.  He also credits his arrest and subsequent prison term.  Dr. Pando’s report helped him understand why he behaved the way he did.  He felt as though the doctor had gotten inside his head.  The report was a revelation and he read it religiously at least once a day.  Prison helped him get over his “sexual addition” and his “chemical addiction.”

Mr. Martin stated that another factor in his “cure” might have to do with his age.  He learned that compulsions such as his diminish with age.  He realizes that he is less inclined to expose himself now because of several factors.  In the first place, he can no longer run as fast to avoid getting caught.  In the second place, with the popularity of camera cell phones, he is likely to be caught.  Mr. Martin also thinks his therapist, Vail Conn, LCSW with VMC Counseling Services in Beacon has been helpful.

As a testament to his “cure”, Mr. Martin offered that he has been a guest speaker at Marist College, acting in the capacity of an expert in the field of sexual abuse and sexual addiction.  He stated that he has a friend who is a professor in the Psychology Department who has invited him to speak to several classes on the subject.  He says he now has a small following of students who have been victimized.  They e-mail him for advice and counseling.

Prior Sexual Offenses

Although Mr. Martin has had only three actual arrests and convictions for a sexual offense, his autobiography, as noted above, states that he made “at least five attempts per day” of exposing himself, “360 days a year, over a 40 year time period.”

His autobiography also includes other incidences of voyeurism.  He wrote that he “discovered voyeurism” in 1980 when he saw a woman undressed and touching herself in a lit room.  He was 23 years old.  He masturbated while watching her regularly.  When he was 38 years old, he “rigged a common bathroom in an apartment to create opportunity to view female residents.”

Mr. Martin stated that he thinks his victims have been affected but he does not know how.  He stated that he prays for them.  He prays that he has not hurt them.

Regarding the Possession of Child Pornography, Mr. Martin stated that he believes that he is guilty of the crime “regardless of the why” because he had the video in his hand.  However, he affirms that he was not intending to use the video for his own sexual gratification.  He was intending to turn it over to the authorities.

Regarding his exhibitionism and voyeurism, Mr. Martin stated that exposing himself and his voyeurism was an “illness” over which he had no control.  He believes that he had “diminished capacity” and did not know at the time that what he was doing was “nor normal”.  By 16 years old, he had an idea that what he was doing was wrong, but it had become a compulsion.  He believes that the most important factor that led to his inappropriate sexual behavior was his sexual victimization as a child, even though he cannot remember it.

Mr. Martin stated that his offenses were a mixture of planning, spontaneity, and compulsion.  There were times when he planned his offenses and times when he reacted on impulse.

He denies having an erection during the incidents.  He stated that he has never had an erection while exposing himself.  Arousal would occur after the offense but he does not feel his behavior was for sexual gratification.  He described it as a “compulsion” and a “force.”

Other Criminal History

In addition to the sexual offenses noted above, Mr. Martin has an extensive drug related criminal history by self-report.

  • In 1990, he was arrested for domestic violence incident but was never charged.
  • In 1992, he began a “history of stealing laptop computers – 10 computers in total.”  He was arrested in 1996 for “Unlawful Entry for purposes of theft” at his employment in Pennsylvania.
  • In 1997, he was arrested for “Attempted Theft” in Cleveland and was sentenced to 10 days in jail.  While incarcerated, he was also charged with “Receiving Stolen Property” and served an additional five months in jail.
  • In 1998, he was arrested for a Violation of Probation and served 30 days in jail.

Sexual History

Sexual Victimization and Trauma History:  Although Mr. Martin is convinced he was sexually abused and victimized as a youngster, he cannot remember specific incidents of abuse.  He remembers a particular smell while lying in bed with his mother.  He remembers his mother being in various stages of undress.  He remembers being made to rub lotion on his mother’s back while she took a bath.  And he remembers being disciplined by being whipped on the buttocks with his pants down.

Masturbatory Fantasies and Sexual Outlet Frequency:  Mr. Martin reported that he first learned about sex at the age of 11 years old.  This occurred when he came home from school early due to illness and found his mother in bed with a man.

Mr. Martin reported that his first sexual experience occurred at 16 years old with a female of the same age.  She was a friend from church.  They had sex one time.  He had no difficulties at that time.

He started masturbating daily at age 11 years old.  Within a short period of time, it became a chronic problem.  He would masturbate three to four times per day to the point where the skin on his penis would become raw and bleed.  It affected his relationships.  From 18-21 years old, he stated that he was impotent.  He could not find or maintain pleasure in intimate relationships.

According to Mr. Martin’s auto-biographical account, between the ages of 18 and 21 years old, he began going to adult movie theaters for the purpose of masturbation.  Exposing himself from his apartment window became uncontrollable. He had his first experience with a prostitute in New York City and began frequenting Asian massage parlors and sexual clubs in Times Square.

When he was arrested for Public Lewdness the first time, his response to the arresting officer was, “What too you so long?”

When he was 23 years old, he and a friend took pictures of themselves while they were sexually active.  One of the photographs was published in a magazine, which resulted in being contacted by someone to have sex with his wife.  He did so but felt repulsed because the woman was overweight.

By the age of 28 years old, Mr. Martin wrote that he began attending nudist clubs and colonies hoping this would lessen his compulsion to expose himself. It did not, so he began hiring himself out as a Male Exotic Dancer.  He performed many shows for a variety of audiences and only stopped when he realized during his final performance that he had just danced in front of his fellow IBM employees and former church associates.

In 2001, Mr. Martin wrote that he began exposing himself via webcam over the Internet.  He eventually lost his job when his employer found pictures of himself posing for women he met over the Internet as well as child pornography.

During the second interview, Mr. Martin stated that he currently masturbates approximately one time per week.  He stated that he masturbates to a video of nude “Girl-Gone-Wild” and Music TV.  He stated that he no longer owns any pornography as an agreement with Probation and his therapist.  He apparently does not view his “Girls Gone Wild” video as pornography.  He thinks that he may not be masturbating as frequently as he used to because he does not have the material.  He also believes that masturbation is “the highest form of selfishness.”

During his third interview, Mr. Martin stated that he has a relationship with a woman in the Philippines who he met over the Internet.  They have been communicating since January 2005.  The each maintain a webcam and they expose themselves to each other.  He masturbates to the images of her on his computer.  He stated that all of his masturbatory fantasies concern his female friend in the Philippines.  This contradicts what he reported in the previous interview.

Mr. Martin denies ever engaging in sexual activity with other children when he was a child.

Pornography Use:  Mr. Martin stated that he currently does not use pornography.  In the past, he used both videos and magazines, but got away from using magazines and turned to videos when videos became more popular.  Recently, in February 2006, he purged himself of all pornography and brought it to his therapist, Vail Conn. He stated that he had 110 DVD’s in total.  He had already discarded his magazines in the mid 1980’s.

Mr. Martin stated that he was first exposed to explicit magazines and or videotapes at age 11 years old.  He found a cache of magazines in the woods near his father’s house.

Mr. Martin stated that he has observed pornography on the Internet, but is not doing so currently.  He stated that he has chatted sexually on line, but presently only chats with his girlfriend in the Philippines.  Mr. Martin denies trading pornography.  He stated that he has been addicted to the Internet and pornography.

Heterosexual Experiences:  Mr. Martin’s first heterosexual consenting intercourse was at age 16 years old with a 16 year old female as noted above.  They were friends.  They had sex one time.

He estimates he has had 10 consenting heterosexual partners, six of whom were relationships lasting more than one year.

When Mr. Martin was 21 years old, he met his first wife who was 17 years old.  They were married for 17 months.  They lived together for 9 months and separated for 8 months before getting divorced.  That relationship ended when she had an affair.

When Mr. Martin was 25 years old, he met hi second wife who was also 25 years old.  They were together nine years.  That relationship ended because of his drug use and instability.

When Mr. Martin was 35 years old, he met his third wife who was the same age.  They were together for about one and a half years.  That relationship ended when he went into a drug rehabilitation program.

When Mr. Martin was 43 years old, he met his forth wife who was the same age.  They were together for three years.  He is not sure why that relationship ended.  He stated, “It was all in Spanish and I did not want to know.”  He thinks the fact that he went to prison had something to do with it.

Mr. Martin reported that he was unfaithful to his second wife on more than one occasion with one person.  It was with one of the six females that he was in a relationship with for more than one year.  He reported that he was not unfaithful to any of his other wives.  Although he did solicit prostitutes, they were merely for buying, using and sharing drugs.

Homosexual Experiences:  None reported.  Mr. Martin reported that he is homophobic.

Paraphilias not previously noted:  In addition to the above reported paraphilias, Mr. Martin also reported that he has worn and stolen clothing of the opposite sex.

Personal and Social History

Family History:  Mr. Martin was born in and raised in Cleveland, Ohio.  He is the older of two (three) brothers.  He was raised by his mother in a single parent family.  His parents divorced with he was eight years old although he has no memories of his father ever living in the home.

He described his family of origin as poor.  His mother worked as a Registered Nurse.  His father also worked as a Nurse but later went to work for IBM.  His father moved to New York after the divorce and Mr. Martin remembers visiting his father in the summertime.  He described his relationship with his father as close. (Not True)  He stated that he “idolized” him and wanted to be just like him. (Not True)  He stated that he also felt close to his mother as a youngster but realized in his later years that his relationship with his mother was questionable.  He has not spoken to his mother since 1987.  He “chooses” not to speak with his father since 2003 because his father will not be forthright with information that Mr. Martin believes he has concerning his childhood sexual abuse.

Mr. Martin reported that he does not have many memories of his brothers.  He knows they played together and lived in the same room but he cannot recall if they were close.  He maintains contact with his youngest brother who lives in Cleveland.  He has no contact with his second brother who also lives in Cleveland.  He stole money from him in 1996 and he has not had contact with him since that time.

Although Mr. Martin did not think that parental modeling involved aggressive behavior, it apparently did.  His mother disciplined by excessive corporal punishment.  Mr. Martin stated that she used an iron mop with spikes (not true) to beat him and his brothers when they misbehaved.  He stated that he was “afraid” of his mother.  He was, by his perception, conflicted as a child.  He felt that he lived a double life.  On the one hand, he appeared to be a typical youngster and on the other hand, he was compelled to expose himself. No one was aware of his sexually deviant behavior.

There is no reported family history of mental illness, suicide attempts, criminality, or sexual deviancy.  He stated that his mother was being treated for suicidal ideation but had never made any attempts.

Developmental History:  There is no reported history of childhood behavior problems such as fire setting, enuresis, running away, cruelty to children, or cruelty to animals.  Although his mother used to tell him that she thought he was retarded, he does not believe he was.

Educational History:  Mr. Martin completed the 12th grade and had some college.  He was not a good student. (Not true)  To this day, he has a fixation with time because his uncle (grandfather) would beat him with a leather strap if he could not tell the time.  He stated he has clocks all around his room today and can see the time from wherever he sits.  His parents thought he had a learning disability but he excelled in certain areas.  He was poor in math and science but excelled in English and communication.  He was involved in choir and drama.  He tried sports but was not gifted in that area.  He described himself as the class clown and was always in trouble for disturbing the class.  He liked school.  He was hired by IBM immediately upon graduation from high school.  He had some college course work when he was 21 years old in data processing and psychology.  He did not complete college because of his “conflict” with exposing himself.

Military History:  None reported.

Employment History:  Mr. Martin’s employment history has been significant for many high profile corporate positions that he was unable to sustain due to a serious drug addiction.  He was terminated from IBM in 1991 after 18 years when he tested positive for drugs.  Two years after leaving IBM, he was hired as the Assistant Director of Development for Teen Challenge in Pennsylvania.  He was terminated after two years for theft and drug use.  (Conflicted by using two incidences and combining them)  The following year he was hired by Caron Foundation as an Office Manager.  Before he could receive his first paycheck, he was arrested for stealing from the company.  Several months later, he landed a position as Director of Development and Vice President with new Life Health Institute.  He was terminated within months when he was arrested for Voyeurism.  In 1997, he returned to Cleveland and was hired as the Assistant to the Vice President of Operations for a major grocery retailer.  He was terminated from that position when he was arrested for Attempted Theft and Receiving Stolen Property six months after he was hired.  Prior to his arrest for Child Pornography, Mr. Martin lived and worked in Puerto Rico.  Mr. Martin is presently employed as a night auditor for Best Western.  He has been employed there since January 2005.

Financial History:  Mr. Martin reported that he is financially stable.  He maintains a checking and savings account and has no outstanding debts.  He maintains several credit cards.  He does not own a vehicle and does not have a driver’s license.

Marital History:  Mr. Martin has been married and divorced four times:

  • In 1978, he met his first wife.  They were married for one year.  He stated in his autobiography that he had difficulty maintaining “an affectionate and loving posture.”  The relationship ended when she had an affair.
  • In 1982, Mr. Martin married his second wife.  He stated in his autobiography that they did not have sexual relations after the first year.  He could not “manage intimacy” although he did have an affair with another woman during this marriage.  His second wife was unaware that he was hiring himself out as an Exotic Dancer.  They separated in 1987 and were divorced in 1991.
  • In 1992, he married his third wife.  They separated in 1993 due to his drug usage.  They were divorced in 1994.
  • In 2000, he met his forth wife over the Internet.  She was from Puerto Rico.  He relocated to Puerto Rico in 2001.  They divorced while he was incarcerated.

Residence History:  Prior to his instant offense arrest, Mr. Martin lived in Puerto Rico.  He had relocated to Puerto Rico in 2001 as noted above.  Prior to living in Puerto Rico, he lived in Cleveland, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and New York.

Medical History:  Mr. Martin considers himself to be in good health.  He has no major medical problems.  He has never had any major injuries, illnesses or hospitalizations.   He is not on any medicines.

Psychiatric History:  Mr. Martin has had four suicide attempts and three psychiatric hospitalizations:

  • His first suicide attempt occurred in 1991.  He ingested 32 sleeping pills and 12 ounces of beer.  He woke up two days later.  This incident went unreported.
  • In 1993, he made a second attempt again using sleeping pills and liquor.  He was involuntarily committed to a State Hospital for seven days.
  • Again in 1993, four months after his second suicide attempt, he made a third suicide attempt by carbon monoxide poisoning.  During this time, he sat in his car for six hours while the motor was running.  He was not hospitalized because he woke up after seeing a “vision of God’ and recovered in two hours.  However, suicidal ideation continued and he eventually voluntarily committed himself to St. Francis Hospital that same year.
  • In June 1998, he attempted suicide for a fourth time by slashing his wrists.  He was admitted to St. Vincent’s Charity hospital, diagnosed with Depression and prescribed Prozac and Depakote.  After one month on the medication, he discontinued it due to feeling it was not helpful.

Mr. Martin self reported that his psychiatric history was related to his drug and exposure addictions.  He denies that he is currently depressed.  He is not on any medications.  He sees Vail Conn, LCSW at VMC Consulting Services in Beacon, New York.  She reported that he “is highly motivated, insightful and perceptive.  He utilizes his treatment effectively and continues to grow and make positive changes in his life.”

Regarding his sexual deviancy, he has never been referred to, evaluated by, or treated by any other sexual offender program as an adult or a juvenile.

Substance Abuse History:  Mr. Martin has an extensive history of substance abuse problems.  He began using crack-cocaine in 1987 (1989) and developed a serious addiction that led to loss of employment, loss of family, criminality, and four attempts to end his life as noted above.  He stated that in the years prior to his incarceration for Child Pornography, he used drugs “as often and as much as I could.”  Although he was admitted to at least three substance abuse programs by self report, he does not appear to have completed any of them.  (Not true)  He continued to abuse drugs after his discharge or termination from those programs.  During his incarceration, he states that he “prayed for healing regarding drug use and exposure compulsion and believe healing has been given.”

Mr. Martin also abused alcohol although it was not his drug of choice.  He reported that he has never been arrested for a DWI.

Social Relationship History:  Mr. Martin described his relationships with peers as very good.  He described himself as both gregarious and a loner because of his double life.  He was an “extrovert” and a “class clown” and did not have difficulty making friends.  He maintains some friendships from his childhood.  Presently, he estimates that he has four close friends with whom he can socialize.  Together they enjoy bowling, going out to dinner, going to church, and having a monthly breakfast meeting.  They also enjoy “Saturday night Monopoly.”  Throughout his autobiography, it was apparent that his religion and his ministry provided many opportunities for socialization and exploitation.

Religious Affiliation:  Mr. Martin is a practicing Seventh-Day Adventist.  He was ordained as an Elder in 1973.  He attends services irregularly.

Recreational/Leisure Time:  In his free time, Mr. Martin enjoys reading and writing and teaching himself new software.  He also enjoys walking.

 

Risk Assessments

The Static 99 and RRASOR are actuarial instruments used to assign levels of risk of sexual re-offending behaviors.  These instruments take into consideration a person’s prior sexual and criminal offenses and violent behavior as well as the age, sex, and relationship of victims.  Scores obtained from these instruments yield a classification category of risk.  In addition to the static scores, that is, events that have already occurred or are not likely to change, dynamic factors are taken into consideration in assigning levels of risk to sexual offenders.  While no actuarial instrument can predict future behavior, it can be utilized as a way to objectively measure certain risk factors.

The Static 99 and RRASOR Summary Risk assessment instruments were completed with regard to Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin placed as a high/moderate risk on the RRASOR and high risk on the Static 99.  RRASOR and STATIC-99 scores are associated with the likelihood that a sex offender will be convicted for a new sexual offense.  Mr. Martin’s score places him at a 24.8% to 39% chance that he will be convicted for a new sexual offense in five years and a 36.9% to 45% chance that he will be convicted for a new sexual offense in ten years.

Other factors called dynamic risk factors may affect his risk level in the community.  In addition to the Static 99 and RRASOR scores, the Sex Offender Treatment Needs and Progress Scale was administered to Mr. Martin.  The Sex Offender Treatment Needs and Progress Scale is designed to aid clinicians in identifying and monitoring the treatment needs and progress of adult male sex offenders ages 18 and older.  The scale consists of 22 risk factors empirically or theoretically linked to sexual offending.  Each of these factors is potentially amenable to change and therefore is commonly a target for intervention in sex offender treatment programs.  Although there is strong evidence that the risk factors measured on this instrument are important treatment targets and are associated with a client’s risk to sexually re-offend, it should be considered an experimental scale.  Research is ongoing to improve its reliability and investigate its predictive validity.  Sex Offender Treatment Needs and Progress Scale is scored for each item according to the scale below:

Summary of Dynamic Risk Factors

 

Sexual Deviancy:  Mr. Martin readily admits to an extensive history of sexual offending beginning at age six years old.  However, he denies that the Index Offense is a sexual offense.  According to Mr. Martin, he was not intending to use the child pornography for sexual gratification.  He intended to turn it over to the authorities.  His sexual interests continue to be in deviant themes as he admitted that he continues to expose himself via a webcam and electronically transmit these images to an interest in the Philippines who reciprocates in kind.  He masturbates to the images of his exposed interest.  The fact that he admitted this seems to indicate that he does not recognize how this behavior supports sexual offending.  He does not appear to have any understanding of his sexual offending risk factors nor does he appear to have any risk management strategies.

Criminality:  Mr. Martin appears to have some difficulty recognizing attitudes or thoughts that support criminal or rule breaking behavior.  He reported using pornography against his probation and treatment provider’s recommendations and he is exposing himself over the Internet.

Self-Regulation:  Mr. Martin does not appear to have a substance abuse problem at this time.  It is of concern that he does not appear to have successfully completed a substance abuse program.  He believes his addiction was “healed”.  He does not appear to suffer from emotional problems and is not on any medications at the present time, despite a past psychiatric history significant for four suicide attempts.  He seems capable of identifying and solving typical life problems fairly successfully.  His behavior seems planned and purposeful at the present time.

Treatment & Supervision Cooperation:  Mr. Martin recognizes a need to change but does not appear to be taking significant action to change.  While he attends individual therapy, he does not appear to have received sex offender specific treatment that conforms to the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Standards and Guidelines.

Lifestyle Stability: Mr. Martin’s employment, residence, and finances appear to be stable.

Social Supports:  While Mr. Martin reports that he has a relationship with a woman in the Philippines, this cannot be considered a stable relationship.  He has never met her in person.  Locally, he appears to associate with the values and opinions of friends who are a positive influence.  However, his friend in the psychology department at Marist College is naïve to believe that he or she is not placing the students at risk by allowing Mr. Martin to speak as an authority on sexual abuse and addiction and independently counsel via e-mail.

Summary and Recommendations

 

Mr. Martin was referred by Senior Assistant Public Defender David Martin for a psycho-sexual evaluation to assist the Court in making a determination regarding his sex offender risk level in an upcoming SORA proceeding.  His index offense involves a conviction for Possession of Child Pornography in 2002 for which he served 30 months in prison.  The Board is recommending a departure from Level I Offender status to a Level II Offender status because they feel Mr. Martin cannot be credited for taking responsibility for his actions due to his explanations for such actions.

Mr. Martin continues to deny that he had any intention to commit a sexual offense.  He maintains that he purchased the Child Pornography with the intention of handing it over to the authorities.  Given his extension history of sexually deviant and criminal behavior, his explanation seems doubtful.  In the first place, up until the time of his arrest, his lifestyle was marked by a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others that is characteristic of an antisocial personality.  Such a personality tends to be void of a conscience.  In the second place, nothing else in Mr. Martin’s history up to that point supports any conventional standard of morality.  The likelihood that he was acting on some altruistic impulse to save child sex abuse victims by purchasing the pornography to turn it over to the authorities is as bizarre as it is distorted.

Sexual offending is not a “sickness” and as such, there is no “cure”.  The medical model is not effective with this population and may actually increase the risk of recidivism.  Structured, cognitive behavioral treatment that targets specific criminogenic needs is considered to be the most effective approach to treatment.  Mr. Martin believes that he is “healed” indicating a lack of awareness that the potential for a re-offense continues to exist.  As such, he is a high risk.  This is supported by his score on both the Static-99 and the RRASOR instruments.

Mr. Martin does not appear to have received sex offender specific treatment that is designed to address his risk factors, correct his thought distortions that support sexual offending, develop an effective risk management strategy, and limit his access to potential victims.  He continues to use a webcam to expose himself to someone he met over the Internet.  He continues to be sexually aroused and to masturbate to images of this person doing the same.  He has access to victimized Marist College students who view him as a specialist in the field of sexual abuse, and who see him out for counseling.  As the night auditor for a hotel, he may also have access to guest’s rooms.  These are high risk situations that may increase his risk of re-offending.

While Mr. Martin appeared cooperative during the assessment, he contradicted himself between interviews.  During his second interview he stated that he masturbates once a week to a video of “Girls Gone Wild” and Music TV.  During the third interview he reported that he has a webcam which he uses to expose himself to a woman he has met over the Internet and he masturbates to images of her doing the same.  Yet he stated that he has purged himself of all pornography as an agreement between Probation and his therapist.  This seems questionable.

It is also curious that Mr. Martin blames his sexually deviant behavior on his childhood.  He assumes he was sexually abused because of his deviant behavior.  However, he cannot recall any specific incidents of sexual abuse.  There is no question that his recollection of his mother’s behavior towards him was odd and emotionally disturbing.  But it is fallacious for Mr. Martin to infer that his sexual offending behavior is directly correlated to a history of sexual abuse.  His deduction is unsound.

Mr. Martin meets the Diagnostic Criteria, according to the Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) for Exhibitionism 302.4.  He has demonstrated, over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving exposing his genitals to an unsuspecting stranger.  In addition, his fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors have caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.  He also appears to meet the Diagnostic Criteria for Voyeurism 302.82.

Recommendations

 

The material reviewed by this writer, as well as Mr. Martin’s responses and presentation during the assessment interviews indicate that he is in need of treatment that is specifically geared toward sexually offending behavior.  It is recommended that he abide by all of the conditions set forth by that treatment program, and that his participation be strictly monitored.

Due to the nature of Mr. Martin’s offending behavior, community based treatment can be recommended only with the strict enforcement of his conditions of probation and that his probation officer be supervised by a probation officer who has specialized training in the supervision of sexual offenders.  Sexual offending like substance abuse is an issue that no only requires long-term treatment but also must be addressed on an ongoing basis.

Mr. Martin should not have access to Marist College students who are vulnerable to victimization.  He should not have access to guest’s rooms at his place of employment.  He should be restricted from using a webcam and his Internet access should be restricted, monitored, or prohibited (see below).

Mr. Martin should undergo a psychological examination that includes a Hare psychopathic checklist to assist in assessing for Antisocial Personality Disorder.

He should also submit to a psychiatric evaluation conducted by a psychiatrist who is knowledgeable in sex offender behavior.  Such an evaluation should assess his appropriateness for medication that could assist with lessening his compulsive symptoms.  Dr. Richard Krueger at the New York State Psychiatric Institute’s Sexual Behavior Clinic in New York City would be a good resource.

In addition to the standard restrictions placed on Mr. Martin by the legal system, specialized sex offender restrictions should be in place and enforced by his probation officer.  These restrictions are part of an overall sex offense management program designed to ensure the safety of the community.  Enforcement of these restrictions will decrease the risk of re-offense and allow Mr. Martin to progress in treatment.  Non-enforcement of these conditions will not only increase the risk to the community but may hamper Mr. Martin’s ability to benefit from treatment.  Restrictions pertaining to contact with minors are in place even for those clients whose offenses were against adults.  These restrictions are necessary since it is not uncommon for sexual offenders who have victimized adults to have unreported minor victims.  Restrictions pertaining to the abstinence of any mind altering substance is necessary as these substances alter one’s judgment and ability to think clearly.  As treatment progresses, some restrictions may be modified.

  1. Mr. Martin should have no contact with minors.  He should refrain from frequenting any place where minors are likely to congregate such as shopping malls, parks, and fast food restaurants.
  1. Mr. Martin should refrain from the use of alcohol or mind-altering substances.
  1. Mr. Martin should not frequent bars, taverns, nightclubs, liquor stores, or purchase/possess any alcoholic beverages.
  1. Mr. Martin should disclose his sexual offending history to all persons with whom he has a significant relationship with.
  1. Mr. Martin should not visit adult bookstores, sex shops, or other establishments at which they are performed or shown any obscene plays, motion pictures, or other exhibits.
  1. Mr. Martin should not possess or view any obscene[i] books, magazines, photographs, videotapes, websites, films, plays, or other exhibitions. Computer use and/or Internet access should be restricted, monitored or be prohibited.
  1. Mr. Martin should refrain from riding in a vehicle with a female unless approved by the RISC/Parole team.
  1. Mr. Martin should refrain from hitchhiking or picking up hitchhikers.
  1. Mr. Martin should refrain from knowingly entering into or upon any school grounds or any other facility or institution primarily used for the care or treatment of persons under the age of 18.
  1. Mr. Martin should disclose his sexual offending history to property owners and/or management of apartment complexes, buildings, or mobile parks where he resides if they allow children.
  1. Mr. Martin should refrain from employment that may put him in contact with minors or other high risk situations such as access to private homes.  All employment should be approved by Probation and his treatment providers.
  1. Mr. Martin should not purchase or possess firearms.
  1. Mr. Martin should maintain travel logs with destinations, mileage, and time indicated.
  1. Mr. Martin should not leave Dutchess County unless there is a valid reason and unless specifically permitted in writing by Probation.

 

Diagnosis

Axis I:         Exhibitionism 302.4

Voyeurism       302.82

Axis II:        R/O Antisocial Personality Disorder

R/O Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Axis III:       no diagnosis

Axis IV:      Problems with the social/legal environment

Axis V:       Current GAF: 70

END

I was highly disappointed and even angry.  I believed this person would have done me justice but, again, used all of the information provided against me.  NO ONE was able to see the great strides I had made in my life and seem to want to condemn me for my past.  I immediately sat down to write a detailed, explanatory, rebuttal letter, which is as follows:

April 26, 2006

Mr. David Martin

Senior Assistant Public Defender

RE:       Janet Guidice, RISC Evaluator, Family Services

This report is in response to her evaluation to clarify those areas which were convoluted, or just simply misstated and wrong.  The conditions in which the so-called evaluation was done was not conducive to a more accurate rendering due to facilitated rapidness for the Court’s purposes which had us to not follow their normal procedure regarding assessments, and her inability to listen to me and type relative bits of information at the same time.  I will cite her statements in bold italic and follow my response in normal type.

Page 2, para. 2, Background Information – “…jurisdiction and court not specified in report”

Ans.           The jurisdiction was the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Federal Court adjudicated the charge.

Page 3, para. 1, Identifying Information – “…he sees a doctor who is a ‘specialist in sexual behavior”

Ans.           I “saw” this specialist which the United States Government contracted to provide an evaluation due to the specific and specialized nature of the illness determined.

Page 3, para 1, ibid – “…unsolicited documentation and Dr. Pando’s report”

Ans.           At every instance of my case and now registration process, I have sought to provide “all” information relative and pertinent.  It is my belief in doing so constitutes a willingness to share any and all information without regard for embarrassment. It should also be recognized these issues have been dealt with and to divulge any situation should be considered a positive step toward the rehabilitation process.

Page 3, para 1, Mental Status – “…average intelligence, and insight into emotional basis of his present condition was fair.”

Ans.           This contradicts the previous report offered by Dr. Pando who stated after doing several psychological and Intelligence testing that my intelligence is superior and insight was above average.  Ms. Guidice did not do any testing to make an accurate determination.

Page 3, para. 1, Current Case Situation – “…the Court is ‘unsure of a proper classification”

Ans.           I stated to this evaluator it was my belief I was in this process because I was challenging the NYS Board of Examiner’s recommendation I should be classified a higher level after it being determined I fell within the group Level 1 classification due to a statement which is considered predatory, which was taken out of context, and that I did not take responsibility for my actions.  At no time did I challenge this Court’s competency.  However, it is my desire to have presented before this Court a more complete picture of the facts prior to a decision which would affect the remainder of my life.  Also, it is my intent to demonstrate to this Court that what is listed as Level 2 and Level 3 has constituted an aggressive nature with some physical violence associated which has NEVER been my motive or act at any time during my psycho-sexual history.

Page 4, para. 5, “…drug rehabilitation program.”

Ans.           The program was called New Life Health Institute which dealt with pre/post natal traumatic experiences which exhibited itself in anti-social sexual behavior or other acting out symptomatic behavior which may include drug addiction.  This program/ministry was conducted by a board certified psychologist who was also a licensed and ordained minister of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.  His wife who assisted him was a registered nurse with a master’s degree in the field of psychology.  Their purpose was to utilize a Christian experience in the treatment of their clients.  And according to the police, had I called first she would have been arrested.  This woman had been in the program for five years and was considered a staff member.  Note:  I was the one who brought up the situation in group which precipitated my arrest, considering myself to be forthright.  Also, it should be noted the doctor and his wife were not on the premises at the time but the managing of the group was in his designate.

Page 5, para. 2, “…’cure’ of exposing myself due to…”

Ans.           I stated by enumerating the reasons for my “belief” I have been cured from exposing myself:

  1. Lack of compulsion to do so
  2. Psychological readings indicate there is a cessation of such behavior upon entering 40’s
  3. Appearance of being overweight and middle-aged
  4. Lack of being able to get away from the scene of an incident due to inability to run due to bad knees
  5. Everyone carries a cell-phone some with photo capability.  This was not prevalent during the 60’s through the 80’s.
  6. I am currently under the auspices of the United States Federal Probation Office,
  7. I am registered with the Dutchess County Sheriff’s Department, Town of Poughkeepsie and Beacon Police Departments.

It should also be noted at one time in my life this was an uncontrollable compulsion.  If this were still the case, I would still be doing it and there would be police reports citing such behavior, therefore, the proof of the lack of such activity can be verified by contacting police agencies in Poughkeepsie, Wappingers and Beacon which were my areas of activity in the 70’s until the early 90’s and see if there has ever been a report lodged since my returning to the area in December 2005.  Even after previous arrests, my exposure did not stop.  I simply moved it to other locales.  It should be considered similar to my drug addiction.  There has not been any reappearance of substance abuse due to the Probation Office and VMC Counseling Services doing regular and spontaneous toxicological testing during this same time period.  If one would state that I’m clean of drugs couldn’t the same be true regarding previous sexual behavior?

Page 5, para. 2, “…Marist College and guest speaker…”

Ans.           Ms. Guidice totally missed the mark on this one.  If there is to be any classification or designation as being an “expert” in the field of sexual abuse and/or addiction it would be only in the area of my own experience.  I “am” the expert of what I have lived through.  The purpose of my invitation was to cover an area in which the students were being instructed.  I was to offer myself as a “case subject” if anyone was interested in interviewing me.  None have requested such.  Also, I’m grateful to be free enough to be able to discuss my experiences as a way of breaking down the walls which are so easily constructed by those who have suffered in a similar manner.  Never had I thought I would be in a position to do so.  This is a positive admission.  Any response from students had been in their being thankful for having someone brave enough to admit what they were going through.  Only one male student requested further information and treatment because he was suffering from homosexual tendencies which disturbed him.  I answered him and referred him to the Professor.  Any emails were also forwarded to the Professor on copy.  It should be noted that all students are considered “adults”.  I DO NOT HAVE ANY SMALL FOLLOWING OF STUDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN VICTIMIZED.

Page 5, para. 6, “…rigged a common bathroom in an apartment to create opportunity to view female residents.” 

Ans.           This was done at New Life Health Institute which resulted in my already acknowledged arrest.

Page 6, Other Criminal History, – “…1990, arrested for domestic violence…”

Ans.           This incident involved my second wife who was physically aggressive toward me.  I restrained her to get away from the home, by holding her away from me until I could get the door open to leave.  During the time I was away from the residence, she called the police at the urging of a friend.  When the police arrived he requested I should go with him because of the “bump” on her head which he believed I inflicted.  It was determined after many days later, this bump had been present on her for many years after being hit in the head as a child.  NO CHARGES WERE FILED.

Page 6, ibid, – “…served ‘five’ months in jail.”

Ans.           It was six months and the last month was served in an Ohio state prison.

Page 7, para 2, “…had sex with obese woman”

Ans.           I did not.  My repulsion did not lead me to have sex with her.

Page 7, para. 4, “…employer found child pornography”

Ans.           It was reported in the answer to the Federal Complaint in Puerto Rico that the child pornographic picture, one of them, was seen because it was during the discussion in a chatroom group someone had queued up a picture which was displayed and remained resident in the pc’s memory.  Not only my pc but anyone who was involved in that group would have had the same photo logged.  It was determined there was no way it could be proved I actually sought the acquiring of such an image and there was no further discussion.  There was found to be no image on the pc upon evaluation.

 

Page 7, para. 5, “…Girls Gone Wild videos and pornography”

Ans.           I still do not associate Girls Gone Wild videos as pornography since it cannot be sold over television which is where I have gotten mine.  However, it has been determined during my treatment sessions with VMC Counseling, pornographic images is not my problem as much as pictures of nudity is.  I do not care for any sexual acts being depicted, but only interested in the act of removing clothing.  Therefore, would the image of a woman removing her clothing be classified as pornographic?

Page 7, para. 9, “…finding cache of magazines”

Ans.           This occurred twice.  Once when I was age 11 while living with my mother and coming home from school and the second during a summer visitation with my father, in New York, when I was 14.

Page 8, para 6, “…Fourth marriage breakup”

Ans.           This appears to make me sound imbecilic!  I do not know the actual reason for the divorce because the divorce decree and the proceedings were done in Spanish.  I requested through our attorneys since I was handling enough dealing with my own reasons for being incarcerated at the time and the delicate state of mind I was in, it was not important for me to receive the documents nor to have a translation.  To date, I still do not have a copy of the divorce decree and am not interested in obtaining such.

Page 8, Personal and social History, para. 1, “…older of two brothers”

Ans.           I am the oldest of three (3) brothers.

Page 9, para. 1, “…used an iron mop with spikes to beat him and brothers”

Ans.           Was way out of line!  I said that my mother used a mop handle to beat us.  There were no spikes!


Page 9, ibid, “…no one was aware of his sexually deviant behavior”

Ans.           This was not true.  My mother actually caught me exposing myself from the front door.  I was 16 years old. Her response was, “What are you doing?”  She was not interested in any reason given just mentioned she would only have to deal with me for one more year!

Page 9, Educational History, “…was not a good student”

Ans.           Inaccurate.  I was an excellent student who could have graduated a year earlier however my mother requested I be held for an additional year because I would not have been able to have worthwhile employment at so young an age and she didn’t want me in the home during the day when she would have been sleeping or whatever activity she would be involved during school hours.

 

Page 9, ibid, “…uncle would beat him with a leather strap for making a mistake learning how to tell time.”

Ans.           Incorrect.  It was my grandfather.

Page 9, Employment History, “Teen Challenge”

Ans.           Incorrect.  She will state I never completed any drug programs.  Teen Challenge is a drug program.  In order to have been employed there I had to have had finished their course.  I graduated June 1994 after completing their 11 month program.  They hired me for a six month period.  I left after completing the sixth month because I was offered a position working for the Trust and Asset Department of Mellon Bank in Philadelphia.

Page 10, Financial History, “…no outstanding debts”

Ans.           Incorrect.  I have over $7,000 in outstanding debt however I have no accounts which are in arrears.  I pay my debts on time.

Page 10, Psychiatric History, “…vision of God”

Ans.           Incorrect.  I said that I had a dream of my ex-wife’s daughter who I wanted to see grow up.  I was involved in her first year of birth by providing care while her mother worked during the day.  I changed my hours to work at night to accommodate her and she is like a daughter to me.  She will be 16 this August and I spoke with her just recently.  I mentioned I believed this vision was “from” God.

Page 11, para. 1, “…never referred, evaluated, etc.,”

Ans.           Incorrect.  I was ordered by the court during the first public lewdness charge to seek treatment.  I met with a Christian Psychiatrist in 1979 for about one year.  Also, IBM required I have sessions with their on-site psychologist.


Page 11, Substance Abuse History, para. 1, “…using crack cocaine in 1987”

Ans.           Incorrect.  It was 1989.  This is where she also mentions my not having completed any drug treatment where I have shown I have with Teen Challenge after the second attempt.  She mentions I abused alcohol.  This was not the case.  I’ve never had any trouble with alcohol and choose not to imbibe at all.  Today, I do not drink any alcoholic beverages at all.

Page 11, Risk Assessments, para 2, “…likelihood that a sex offender will be convicted for a new sexual offense.”

Question.  I don’t see it mentioned anywhere regarding the person’s age as being a factor of them committing an offense as well as being in active treatment and/or counseling or under the auspices of probation.

Page 12, Risk Assessments, para, “…Research is ongoing.”

Question.  I take issue with this statement as to its accuracy and validity in determining anything qualitative:  ALTHOUGH THERE IS STRONG EVIDENCE THAT THE RISK FACTORS MEASURED ON THIS INSTRUMENT ARE IMPORTANT TREATMENT TARGETS AND ARE ASSOCIATED WITH A CLIENT’S RISK TO SEXUALLY RE-OFFEND, IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN EXPERIMENTAL SCALE.  RESEARCH IS ONGOING TO IMPROVE ITS RELIABILITY AND INVESTIGATE ITS PREDICTIVE VALIDITY.       

Note:  The evaluator has no experience in the area of “paraphilia” and therefore is not able to adjust such statistics to reflect such categorized behavior patterns.  Her findings are based upon those persons who are convicted for sexually related criminal behavior which has not been determined as to why.  This does not apply in my case since we have it on the word of an authority as to the “why” I have been involved in a sexual offense.  This is tantamount to treating someone for a heroin addiction who is addicted to say marijuana.  Yes, both are an addiction but treatment for each should be specialized for its own particular need determinant.

Page 12, Summary of Dynamic Risk Factors, section Sexual Deviancy, “…exposure and masturbation considered deviant behavior or sexual offending.”

Ans.           I challenge this statement.  Although it might not be considered “normal” by persons who may have the ability to date or meet in a reality setting and not virtual.  This is not the case for us.  Dr. Pando’s evaluation stated it would be good for a parafilia to learn to establish a loving relationship.  This is being sought.  Eventually, this woman and I will meet.  In fact, we would have been meeting this month had the US Probation Department granted my request for travel.  They hadn’t denied it, just hadn’t answered the request.  However, she will be traveling from the Philippines to Michigan to take up residency and employment.  I will be meeting with her at that time.  I have known this woman since January 2005.  We’ve only been exposing ourselves since January 2006. Ms. Guidice statement staying that this behavior a loving couple share as being “deviant and sexually offending” is in error and inconclusive.  Many couples now use the Internet as a way to continue their relationship while away physically.  My fourth wife and I met via the Internet and it resulted in our eventual meeting and marriage.  If she, and she has, exposed herself and masturbated does that mean she, too, is a sexual offender?  I hardly think so.  In fact, there are websites particularly for couples to meet, whether married or otherwise, who have formed loving relationships who share in each other in this way.  Perhaps, because the technology is a novelty and is relatively new but it hardly constitutes the grouping of perverts getting together.  It would appear to me the sexual offending type nature of this would be if someone were to be exposed to someone else, such as exhibitionism in a public setting, if the other person was not agreeable to such type behavior.  This is strictly between consenting adults.  And she and I have agreed to be in a committed relationship which will eventually lead to marriage once she has arrived in the States.

Page 12, Criminality, “reported using pornography against probation and treatment provider’s recommendation.”

Ans.           Inaccurate.  It was determined by the US Probation Department that the Sentencing Judge’s order specifically referred to pornography which was involved in the criminal complaint which involved child pornography.  Pornography is constitutionally protected.  I advised US Probation to seek clarification from the re-assigned Judge for the district in which I am currently living and this Court determined it would be best if I would not see any of this.  I agreed.  Monitoring software was installed, visitations are conducted and I am accountable to my treatment provider.

Page 12, Self-Regulation & Treatment and Supervision Cooperation, “…does not appear to have a substance abuse problem but concern there does not appear to have completed a drug program.”

Ans.           Question.  What is the mystique of not completing a drug program yet having successfully shown no drug usage?  Although I have cleared the error she made in reporting I hadn’t completed a drug program, I can truly say it was not the drug program I completed to be given the credit for my current sobriety.  It is strictly due to my commitment to not do drugs as well as my belief and faith in a “higher power” I choose to call God.  It is also due to the fact now I understand why I did the drugs in the first place.  Doing drugs in symptomatic of a more deeper problem.  I’m not interested in handling symptoms as much as I am interested in understanding why.  Can this be enough?  AND, if this is the case with substance abuse, can it not also be said so about previous compulsive behavior such as exhibitionism and/or voyeurism?  Must a “former” addict have completed a formal program in order to maintain sobriety, or, is sobriety achieved and maintained, what we are really wanting, regardless of how it is achieved?  All the checks and balances are in place to “catch” a person in an act of relapse.  Therefore, I conclude, my sobriety in substance abuse and in compulsive sexual behavior has to be accepted unless there appears to be a relapse.  Thus far, no relapses have occurred in either.

I was sent to prison and took it upon myself to use the time given me to overcome those issues which brought me there.  We call prison a rehabilitation provider.  If one person actually takes advantage of the system, isn’t that a credit to the system?  It shows it CAN work IF someone is willing to invest time and effort to make it so.  Please do not discredit me for taking advantage of what society puts into place as the mechanism to aspire to a better way of life.

She mentions in the Lifestyle Stability Section only one sentence:  Mr. Martin’s employment, residence and finances appear to be stable.  IS THIS INDICATIVE OF A DRUG ADDICT OR COMPULSIVE SEXUAL ADDICT?  There are pages and pages of negative commentary but only ONE line of positive mention and this is what we are hoping to have!

Page 12, Social Supports, “…cannot be considered a stable relationship”

Ans.           Question.  What constitutes a “stable” relationship.  It was considered at one time homosexual relationships could not be a “stable” relationship yet legislation has changed.  I’m doing today what people have done many years prior to computers.  I have maintained a “pen-pal” type relationship.

Page 12, Social Supports, “…friend in the psychology department at Marist College”

Ans.           This friend is an advanced degreed college professor with Marist College.  This friend I have known for thirty years.  His children call me Uncle.  This friend is responsible for a great deal of positive community growth in disadvantage persons by offering education and access to job placement.  This friend completed a book which is now on sale in various venues of which I edited and have received recognition and he is now doing the same for me with my book about this experience I’m currently undergoing.

Page 13, Summary and Recommendation

I refute the evaluator’s claim of my intent.  No one can know of someone’s intent based upon previous behavior or what we may think they might have done.  She states that  persons like me are void of conscience yet she mentioned the fact of my four suicide attempts, the shedding of tears in her presence and my willingness to cooperate with her despite my reluctance as to her qualification.  Was it my conscience was which affected?

She states that sexual offending is not a sickness and as such there is no cure, which refutes the more qualified position of Dr. Pando, who has studied and practice in this field more than the years she has lived!  If, as she states, there are no cures, then what does she hope to gain by “structured, cognitive behavioral treatment?  She is merely treating the symptoms and not addressing the cause.  And my belief I am “healed” does not constitute my lack of awareness of re-offending.  I work “every day” to keep from offending.  A lung cancer patient who has been given a clean bill of health for treatment doesn’t take up smoking again.  I don’t continue to practice those things which precipitated my own fallen nature.

She states that my housing, employment and finances are stable, yet she wants to recommend controlling them.  If her recommendation were to be followed through, I would not have my “stable” housing or my “stable” employment and would have to live in a half-way house and likely be unemployed.  The fact I have maintained this job for this length of time, having never been late, never having missed a day of work, always early and never leaving early demonstrates the “healthy” lifestyle which I “choose” to live today.

My sexual life is regulated and controlled and would perhaps be considered normal by normal standards.  I stated I masturbate once a week, would this be considered abnormal?  My goal is to not masturbate at all.  This is certainly a positive move from someone who masturbated chronically for more than 3 or 4 times a day.

My inability to recall any sexual abuse suffered from my mother other than that which was mentioned in her report should not constitute that nothing did happen.  It is a known fact many abused individual’s are quite unable to recall specific situations.  This is their way of survival.  Can it not be acceptable that I have chosen to move forward in my life, acknowledging something “did” happen but not to be any longer obsessed about such things?

Her assessment as regarding DSM-IV is in fact in error.  I don’t expose myself to strangers any longer.  I don’t satisfy the requirement for voyeurism, for I don’t look in on people any longer.

Page 14 & 15 Recommendations

I will not address any of Ms. Guidice’s recommendation regarding myself for the fact her whole reporting, as demonstrated by the client, to be in error.  She has missed many contextual bits of information and therefore unable to form an accurate opinion regarding me.

She was requested to make an evaluation of the probability of my re-offending.  Even in this I would have a question:  In my re-offending how?  By exposing myself?  By attempt to view someone illegally by voyeurism or is she referring to my having acquired images of child pornography?  In the first two, exposure and voyeurism, should I ever do such again, and I believe I won’t, it is a misdemeanor offense.  If it is in the acquiring of child pornography, that was a one time incident and will not occur again, for there is no compulsion regarding such and there is no established pattern of history to quantify any reporting from her.

I initially questioned her qualifications to make an accurate representation of myself and this report shows I was not wrong.

Her recommendations as to instructing my probation officer in how to carry out his job was completely inappropriate for he and his department is actively involved in my welfare.  Had they been overtly concerned as regarding me, certainly they would not jeopardized their position and my overall wellness to function as well as she stated earlier.  So, what is it?  Am I doing good or am I not?

Ms. Guidice seemed very interested in our last meeting and there are nuances of having me join her group.  She provided me a manual given to clients and offered when my meeting with my current provider should be terminated to consider theirs.  This would never be the case for such restrictive a lifestyle would not be constructive for someone such as myself who has not and will never offend in the manner of clients she currently has in house.  There is NO aggression toward women, children or other persons by me.  There is no predisposition to such and if there had been, I would think in my nearly 50 years of life, there would have been at least one police report or charge or indictment stating such.

I wholly request therefore this report be only considered in light of the more qualified reporting of Dr. Jose Pando.

END

This matter disturbed me greatly.  I was having trouble sleeping and anticipating how it would affect my life to have my picture and my record plastered on the Internet and the difficulty I would have later.  If I were to be classified as a Level 1 this would not be a great concern but anything above this level, there would be notification in the public view and I would have to report more often to whatever policing agency there was, no matter where I moved.  I wanted to return to Puerto Rico and just complete their ten-year registration and be over with this, but I was told to come back to New York, and it was God, who was in charge of my life now.

One evening as I was walking to work, God spoke to me, saying,

“Even if you are made a Level 3, can I not still receive glory?”  I heard these words and responded,

“Lord, yes, even if I am labeled a Level 3 Sexual Offender, I know You can still bless in whatever way You desire.”

It was not a “Level 3” I was worried about, so much, it was being classified as a Level 2 sexual offender.  And then I received the following response, June 9, 2006, from my attorney and enclosed within was the judgment of the Court:

COUNTY COURT      :   DUTCHESS COUNTY

PRESENT:     HON. GERALD V. HAYES

Dutchess County Court Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

                                   (SORA Classification)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK:    Index No. 5137/2005

Plaintiff,

WILLIAM V. GRADY, ESQ.

District Attorney

Marjorie J. Smith, Esq.

Assist. Dist. Attorney

for Plaintiff

–   against –

ROY MARTIN,

Defendant,

DAVID GOODMAN, ESQ.

Public Defender

David S. Martin, Esq.

(Of Counsel for

Defendant)

———————————————-

BACKGROUND

   On October 29, 2003, Roy Martin pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico to two counts of Possession of Child Pornography in violation of 18 USC 2252[a][4][B].

On January 30, 2004, he was sentenced to thirty months in prison.

On November 15, 2004, he was placed on supervised release and, according to the Board of Examiners, will be supervised by Federal Probation on a specialized caseload until November 15, 2007.

He is now a resident of Dutchess County and is before the Court for a determination of his risk level pursuant to Correction Law §168-n which is part of the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA).

PRELIMINARY RISK LEVEL

  The defendant appeared personally with his attorney on May 2, 2006 for a hearing.

Using the guidelines and the Risk Assessment Instrument adopted by the New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, the District Attorney and defense counsel agreed that thirty points should be assigned because of defendant’s prior convictions, specifically his 1979 and 1992 misdemeanor convictions for Public Lewdness.

The parties also agreed to the assignment of fifteen points for a history of drug abuse.

The parties disagree as to whether defendant should be assessed ten points for failure to accept responsibility.

The resolution of this issue is not necessary to the total points to be assessed, since the initial risk level is one regardless of whether those points are assessed.

Nevertheless, I think it appropriate to discuss it.

While the defendant pleaded guilty to the charge and admits that he possessed the child pornography, he claims that he ordered it so that he could take it to the police.

When I take into consideration his two prior convictions, his admitted forty year history of exhibitionism and the reports from Family Services (April 2006) and Jose R. Pando, Ph.D. (May 28, 2003), I quite frankly find his explanation as to why he purchased the tape to be incredible.

Accordingly, I do assess ten points for not accepting responsibility.

Pursuant to the assignment of points for the various risk factors, defendant’s risk would be at level ONE.

The District Attorney argues, however, that there should be a departure and that defendant should be classified as a Level THREE.

OVERRIDES – DEPARTURE

  The Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary (November 1997) as well as the Risk Assessment Instrument provides for four overrides making an offender presumptively a level THREE risk.

The District Attorney argues that one such override is applicable here, to wit:  “There has been a clinical assessment that the offender as a psychological, physical or organic abnormality that decreases ability to control impulsive sexual behavior.”

An upward departure is warranted if the evidence offered in support of the override and presumption demonstrates that risk level THREE is based on clear and convincing evidence.  (People v. Brown, 302 A.D.2d 919)

The purpose of the Sex Offender Registration Act, as stated in its preamble is:

The system of registering sex offenders is

a proper exercise of the state’s police power

regulating present and ongoing conduct.

Registration will provide law enforcement

with additional information critical to

preventing sexual victimization and to

resolving incidents involving sexual abuse

and exploitation promptly.  It will allow

them to alert the public when necessary for

the continued protection of the community.

The issue, as I see it, is not whether the defendant is a risk to commit a more serious sexual offense, but, rather, to what extent is he a risk to commit any sexual offense in the future?

On that premise, I find that the People have proved the override by a preponderance of the evidence and that departure to risk Level THREE is warranted.

In 2003, Dr. Pando’s diagnostic impression of the defendant was 302.4 Exhibitionism and 302.82 Voyeurism.  The same diagnosis was made in 2006 by Janet E. Guidice, LCSW.

DSM IV 302.4 describes Exhibitionism as involving the exposure of one’s genitals to a stranger.  Sometimes the individual masturbates while exposing himself.  In some cases, the individual wants to surprise or shock the observer.  In other cases, the individual has the sexually arousing fantasy that the observer will become sexually aroused.

By his own admission, the defendant began exposing himself at age 6 and estimates that he has engaged in over 72,000 attempts or acts of exhibitionism and voyeurism.  (Pando report, p.4)

The defendant acknowledged to Dr. Pando that he was a sexual and a drug addict in need of medical and specialized help. (Pando’s report, p.4)

The defendant also acknowledged to Dr. Pando that he was not certain of what could happen in the future in regard to controlling his sexual misconduct or his drug addiction.  (Pando report, p.5)

Dr. Pando opined that the defendant’s serious lack of self control, which leads to poor social behavior judgment, seems to emerge from deep-seated emotional and personality problems.

The results of one of the tests (CSBI) given the defendant by Dr. Pando indicated that the defendant suffers from a high level of compulsive sexual behavior.  (Pando report, p.6).

I do note that Dr. Pando indicated that the clinical data did not reflect a clear picture of violent sexual behavior.  (Pando report, p.8)   Nevertheless, as previously indicated, the concern here is the level of risk that defendant is unable to control impulsive sexual behavior as a result of a psychological abnormality—regardless of the nature of the misconduct.

During the 2006 evaluation for the purposes of this risk analysis, the defendant apparently told the Social Worker that his exhibitionism and voyeurism were illnesses over which he had no control.  On the other hand, he stated that he has been “cured” of his “sickness” because of Dr. Pando’s evaluation report and his incarceration and that he has learned that his compulsions diminish with age.

During his second interview with the Social Worker, he told her that he currently masturbates once a week or a video of nude “girls-gone-wild.”  During the third interview, he told her that he has a relationship with a woman in the Philippines who he has never met in person but only through the Internet.

According to the report, they each maintain a web-cam and expose themselves to each other, and he masturbates to images of her on the computer.

Although it can be argued that this is private conduct which does not create a risk for the public at large, it is troubling that the defendant apparently gave contradictory statements to the Social Worker in the second and third interviews.

That bears on his credibility which, quite frankly, is suspect as I indicated when discussing his claims about the underlying federal conviction.

The defendant’s mental stability is certainly a factor which I to be considered in making a risk determination.  Accordingly, it should be taken into account that he has made four suicide attempts and that there have been three psychiatric hospitalizations.

As part of the 2006 evaluation, two risk assessment instruments were completed with respect to the defendant.  One (RRASOR Summary Risk) placed him as a high/moderate risk that he will commit a new sexual offense.  The other (Static 99) placed him as a high risk for a re-offense.

As to defendant’s belief that he has been cured, the Social Worker who performed the 2006 evaluation included this opinion (at p.12):

Sexual offending is not a “sickness” and as

such, there is no “cure.”  The medical model

is not effective with this population and

may actually increase the risk of recidivism.

Structured, cognitive behavioral treatment

that targets specific criminogenic needs is

considered to be the most effective approach

to treatment.  Mr. Martin believes that he is

“healed,” indicating a lack of awareness that

the potential for a re-offense continues to

exist.  As such, he is a high risk.  This is

supported by his score on both the Static-99

and the RRASOR instruments.

Taking everything into consideration, I find that the District Attorney has proved that Roy Martin has a psychological abnormality that decreases his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior and that a departure to Level THREE is warranted.

Accordingly, the defendant Roy Martin shall be given a Level THREE designation.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated:      Poughkeepsie, New York

May 31, 2006

(After receiving the aforementioned order, and dealing with depression, the words of Bishop T.D. Jakes in his book, “So You Call Yourself a Man?”, the chapter entitled “Getting Back into Your Right Mind”, pgs, 155-157 was very helpful.  It is reprinted with permission:

[They saw him] that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind…(March 5:15)

When God does a work in your life, He does it in calmness.  He brings about a peace in your life.  All hell may be breaking out against you, but you can sit back and whistle.

This man with an unclean spirit sat calmly at Jesus’ feet after his deliverance.  He had been ranting and raving, roaming through the mountains and tombs—restless in his outward actions, just as he was forever restless in his inner spirit.  After his deliverance by Jesus, he knew the peace that only God can give.

This man was clothed, where he once had been naked.  The Bible tells us that those who overcome the enemy shall “be clothed in white raiment”—they will be in God’s eyes as if they have never sinned.  Peter tells us that we are to be “clothed with humility,” completely submissive to God so that we will hear what God wants us to hear, see what God wants us to see, and then say and do what God wants us to say and do.  (See Revelation 3:5 and 1 Peter 5:5.) (Note:  It was not until editing this chapter, December 23, 2008, it dawned on me, these similar words were the constant prayer of Pastor Ponton, when I stayed at Hosanna Ministries fifteen years before.  He would say, “…God, I’ll go wherever it is You want me to go.  I’ll say whatever it is You want me to say.  I’ll do whatever it is You want me to do…”)

Have you thought about the fact that once this man had been delivered and forgiven by Jesus, it was as if he had never been under the influence of a demon power named Legion?  It was as if he had never walked around with torn chains hanging from his arms and legs, slashing himself with stones and living in the tombs.  He was clothed with righteousness.  God saw him only as forgiven.  He had no “past” with God, only a bright future.

The assurance of forgiveness is what gives a man peace.  When you truly know you are forgiven, you feel a calmness born of trust, a peace born of assurance.  Paul described it for the Philippians as a peace that “passeth all understanding” (Philippians 4:7).

Every man I know needs this kind of peace.

You cannot be the head of your house and be hysterical at the same time.  You can’t fall apart just because your wife has fallen apart.  You can’t lose your cool just because your kids have lost theirs.  Somebody has to keep their wits about them and say, “We’re going to come out of this.”  As priest of your home, you are called to be a stabilizing, protecting force in your home.  When you walk in the front door of your house, everybody in your family should feel safer.  You are called by God to have a “right mind.”  Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 2:5).

Having a right mind means being aware of your responsibilities and accepting them.

I know many men who let their wives deal with all the stress of the family, including anxiety over the family finances, worries over the spiritual life of each family member, and concerns over family provision.  That’s not her role.  You and your wife must share the responsibility for your children and work together to make a plan for your family.  It’s a cop-out for a man to say to his children every time they ask for a decision, “Go ask your mama.”

Can you answer these questions about your children?

Where are your children?

      What time do they go to school?

      What time do they get home?

      Where are they in the evenings?

      What time will they be back?

      You should know!

Having a right mind means being responsible in providing for your family.

I see absolutely no excuse today for a man not to have a job.  If there isn’t a job available in your community that’s suited to your educational level, find a job that’s lower than your educational level and fill it until a better job opens up.  If it’s not illegal, and it’s not sin, go for it!  Pick up a shovel and dig a ditch if you have to.  You may say, “Bishop, have you ever done that?”  I certainly have.  I have dug ditches until my hands were bleeding in order to get $100 to buy groceries to feed the children for another week.  As long as I am in my house, I am responsible for providing for my household.

If you can’t provide everything you want to provide for your family, do what you can do.  You may not know everything, but you can find people who can teach your children the things necessary for them to know.  You may not understand the Bible fully, but you can get your children to church and Sunday (Sabbath) school and to youth group programs where they can learn the Bible, experience the power of God, and learn how to apply the truth of God to their lives.  You may not know everything about prayer, but you can pray for your children with humility of heart and a love that speaks volumes.

Ask the Lord to transform you by the renewing of your mind.  (See Romans 12:2).  The Lord Jesus Christ is your sanity.

Ask God to give you a clear, pure, right mind today.

END

During the time of assessment, I moved from the Town of Poughkeepsie to Beacon and when I showed the police lieutenant responsible for registering sexual offenders in this city, he, too, was a bit surprised at the level determination.  He shared with me he, too, thought it was surprising those who have killed and released are not made to register with the police department and those who have been known for selling drugs and destroying minds and families in the community were not made to register.  He thought, soon, this would get out of hand but because of the public and media attention given to sexually-related crimes, it would not be surprising to see how many would have their lives affected and not necessarily be warranted.

(Note:  As of this writing, November 26, 2007, and although I’m currently in Atlanta, Georgia, I’m still listed on Dutchess County Sexual Offender’s website, as a Level 3, with those who’s crimes are:  sodomy, forcible touching, incest, rape, kidnapping, and I’m listed as:  UNSPECIFIED FELONY SEX OFFENSE COMMITTED OUT OF STATE!  What does that mean?  Did I commit any of those criminal acts which I mentioned previously?  One would think so.  And I’m not even in that state anymore.  If you review the New York State’s Sexual Offender’s website, you will see me having committed this crime:  Attempted Promoting/ Possessing Sexual Performance by a Child.  And what’s even more interesting is they don’t have me finishing my probation not November 14, 2007 but in 2008!  I’ve been living in Georgia since November 1, 2007 and, to date, I’m not listed on their website.  The one good news regarding Georgia is, they’ve repealed the law where a sexual offender may live.  When I reported/registered here, I was told I could stay at my brother’s home because it was 1,800 feet from two churches.  I would not have been able to live here had he lived within 1,000 feet of a school, bus-stop, etc.  And two weeks later, I would have been able to do so!  They determined there are so many churches, schools, bus-stops, etc., in Georgia it would be next to impossible to find a place to live.  At least someone has some sense.  Plus they want to make a determination and re-classify offenders to stipulate how they can be treated because many, such as myself, who are not classified as predators or violent sexual offenders, and are really at a low risk of hurting anyone or for that matter, re-offending sexually, and are mis-classified in the general sense, as like New York, having me with the worse of the worse, but in my particular case, there is no distinction as to what I have done.)

Registering is a difficult process which bears upon me daily.  There is not a day that does not go by I don’t think about it.  I was told I might have trouble trying to get work in a hotel setting “if” they have a pool on the grounds.  I countered the argument by saying those pools would be closed by the time I reported to work.

However, I leave the matter now in God’s hands.  He brought me to this place for a reason. He is taking me through this experience for a reason, and it’s all done in love and for the purpose of my salvation.  And, I’m alright with this.

Chapter 31


[1] 135.05, 135.10, 135.20, 135.25 – the victim must be less than 17 years old and the offender must not be the parent of the victim


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s