DECLARATION OF LISA MARTIN

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "DECLARATION OF LISA MARTIN"

Martina Bond
6 years ago
Views:

1 DECLARATION OF LISA MARTIN I, Lisa Martin, state as follows: 1. I am a Limited License Psychologist. I obtained my bachelors degree from Hope College in 1984, and my masters degree from Western Michigan University in I have my Limited Licensed Psychologist License through the State of Michigan. 2. I have worked as a therapist at the Kalamazoo Probation Enhancement Program (K-PEP) since October I previously had my own practice, Pathways Court Services, where I provided psychological services to court-involved clients. I have worked as a therapist and as interim director of an inpatient substance abuse program previously known as Gateway Services in Kalamazoo. 3. Currently my entire caseload is composed of individuals who committed sex offenses. I have specialized in working with this population since approximately Before that I was primarily involved in treatment of substance abuse. I have treated thousands of clients in my career, including many hundreds of individuals who committed sex offenses. 4. At K-PEP, our therapeutic program requires clients to be fully accountable for the offenses that brought them into treatment. Clients must also complete a relapse prevention plan. 5. I have worked intensively with John Doe since June, Initially Mr. Doe participated in weekly group therapy sessions. In February, 2010, Mr. Doe began attending therapy twice a month. He did very well. 6. Mr. Doe was discharged from treatment on March 22, 2010, after successfully completing the program. During the course of treatment, I spent approximately 60 hours of clinical time with Mr. Doe. 7. Mr. Doe was an asset to group therapy from the beginning. He was honest about his crime, accepted full responsibility for his past actions, and showed deep remorse. He is committed to ensuring that he does not reoffend. He has encouraged other group members to address the issues they are facing. 8. Mr. Doe also completed a relapse prevention plan. An integral part of Mr. Doe s plan was for him to obtain an education so that he would be able to find stable, fulfilling 1

2 employment. 9. Mr. Doe progressed well in treatment, and did not have any setbacks. He understands the seriousness of his offense, and is committed to ensuring that he never reoffends. 10. Mr. Doe has taken his education seriously, and was justifiably proud of his academic success. He wants to obtain a degree and becoming a productive, contributing member of society. 11. Mr. Doe has also taken his parole and sex offender registration obligations seriously. He is very careful to make sure that he is following the many rules that apply to him as a parolee and registrant. 12. Based on my extensive interactions with Mr. Doe over the last year, and based on my review of the psychological tests administered to Mr. Doe, I do not see any evidence of pedophilic tendencies. 13. Historically, Mr. Doe did not present a threat to the general public, even at the time when he committed his offense. His crime involved a very situation-specific offense with a person Mr. Doe knew well. Although there is no excuse for his actions, such a situationspecific offense history suggests that Mr. Doe is not a danger to the public, much less a danger when in public places. Moreover, Mr. Doe has participated actively in therapy for many years since the offense occurred. 14. Mr. Doe does not minimize his past behavior. He understands the harm he caused. At the same time, it is important to recognize that Mr. Doe s offense occurred ten years ago when he was 18 years old and was going through a great deal of emotional turmoil. Mr. Doe was not involved in a pattern of behavior, but rather committed one, isolated offense. Perhaps even more importantly, he is not the same person that he was a decade ago. He has gained an understanding of the underlying reasons for his offense. And he has matured. 15. Mr. Doe cannot change the past or undo what he did. What he can and did do is work towards becoming a different person. For Mr. Doe, obtaining an education was central to his plan to turn his life around. 16. In my professional opinion, Mr. Doe is at low risk of reoffending. 17. In my professional opinion, Mr. Doe s attendance at Lake Michigan College does not present a risk to either children or adults on campus. Mr. Doe is a positive addition to the 2

3 campus, rather than a safety threat. 18. When treating individuals with sex offenses, therapists like myself work closely with the client s parole or probation officers to address any risk factors and ensure that the client is placed in an appropriate work or educational environment. If we have concerns about a client s ability to function in a particular environment, that is addressed through the case management process. 19. Registered offenders who are on parole or probation, including Mr. Doe, are very closely supervised. They must account for all of their time and must wear a global positioning system monitor, which allows their agent to track their movements at all times. They are subject to lie detector tests regarding their behavior. Parolees and probationers must also report regularly to their agent and to their therapist, both of whom are trained to identify any behaviors or situations that would increase recidivism risk. 20. Mr. Doe would not have been allowed to attend Lake Michigan College if either I or his parole agent had concerns about whether it was safe for him to do so. 21. When Mr. Doe was expelled from LMC, he was devastated. He felt that he had done everything he could to improve his life, and everything that was asked of him. He was going to school, holding down as work-study job, taking on responsibilities in student organizations, and getting good grades. Yet despite doing everything right, he was expelled from college 22. Mr. Doe had previously been doing very well, but the expulsion was tremendously destabilizing for him. It speaks to Mr. Doe s character that, despite the fact that the expulsion disrupted everything Mr. Doe had built for himself since his release from prison, he picked himself up and started over. He actively looked for a job, arranged to work off his rent, continued to comply with his parole requirements, and even voluntarily sought therapy to cope with the depression brought on by LMC s decision. 23. Mr. Doe asked me to testify for him at his appeal hearing. However, LMC barred me from testifying. 24. If I had been allowed to testify, I would have made the points I have made in this affidavit. In particular, I would have testified that Mr. Doe can safely attend LMC. I would also have been able to address any questions that the hearing body may have had about Mr. Doe. In addition, I could have discussed the research showing the importance 3

4 of education for preventing recidivism. I could have explained that, contrary to public perception, many individuals listed on the sex offender registry do not present a threat to public safety. Finally, if the panel had had questions about such issues as sex offender treatment or recidivism, I would have addressed those. 25. Individuals who have committed sex offenses vary greatly in their level of risk. There are indeed some individuals who may present a threat if allowed to attend a community college. However, many individuals with sex offenses, including many whose offenses involved minors, can safely attend college. 26. Research shows that education, employment, and stable housing are key factors in reducing recidivism among individuals with sex offenses. Individuals who are able to obtain an education and establish a career are significantly less likely to reoffend. A rule like that applied here by Lake Michigan College removes educational opportunities for former offenders, thereby making it more difficult for them to reintegrate into society. Thus, such a rule actually undermines public safety, rather than promoting it. The best way to promote public safety is to promote education, employment, and stability for people with sex offenses. 27. Any decision to exclude an individual from college based on sex offender status should be made on a case-by-case basis based on clinical evidence that the individual cannot safely attend. 28. Decisions about whether an individual presents a risk to campus safety are best made by clinical and correctional professionals who have experience working with registered individuals, rather than by college administrators. Such administrators generally do not have significant experience in risk assessment or offender management, and may share many of the public misconceptions about people with sex offenses. 29. Where parole/probation officers or treating therapists believe an individual can safely attend college, there is little basis for college administrators to second-guess those decisions. Moreover, if administrators have concerns about a particular student, administrators can obtain the student s consent to consult with parole/probation officers and treating therapists regarding the appropriateness of that student s attendance on campus before prohibiting the student from attending school. 30. Because it is so difficult for individuals with sex offenses to find employment, obtaining 4

5 an education is critical for their ability to reintegrate into society. Therefore, it is tremendously counterproductive to deny educational opportunities to individuals with sex offenses, unless those individuals are so dangerous that they cannot safely attend college. 31. If we truly want to reduce sexual crimes, we should be encouraging individuals with sex offenses to get an education, not prohibiting them from doing so. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I state under penalty of perjury that the above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. Dated: July 2010 Lisa Martin, LLP 5

Community-based sanctions

Community-based sanctions... community-based sanctions used as alternatives to incarceration are a good investment in public safety. Compared with incarceration, they do not result in higher rates of criminal