Bismarck Tribune - Bismarck News - Sex offenders arrested at DOCR house

Sex offenders arrested at DOCR house

Jun 03, 2008 - 04:07:32 CDT

By JENNY MICHAEL
Bismarck Tribune

Two registered sex offenders living at a house owned by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation have been arrested after a probation officer found a 17-year-old girl visiting there during a routine check.

Officer Brian Weigel stopped at the house at 223 S. 14th St. Friday afternoon for an "unannounced, surprise home visit," which he said is routine at the home. A 17-year-old girl was at the house.

"She was there on her own free will," Weigel said.

Geoffrey Miller, 24, was charged Monday with corruption of a minor, a Class Cfelony. He also faces a petition for revocation of probation on a previous gross sexual imposition conviction. South Central District Judge Sonna Anderson set bond for Miller at $50,000 cash.

Weigel said Miller is alleged to have had sexual contact with the 17-year-old girl. He said the girl does not live in the neighborhood around the DOCR house, and she and Miller met at a different location.

The DOCR rents the home and allows homeless sex offenders to live there until they can find a place to live. Weigel said the offenders living in the home are placed under the highest level of security, which includes unannounced visits such as the one on Friday.

Miller and the girl had been seeing each other for about a week, Weigel said. Had Miller not been living in the house, the relationship may not have been discovered for a much longer time.

"It actually shows how this house is working to stop sexual offenses," he said.

Another man living at the home also was arrested. Kyle Hammond, 20, was arrested for a probation violation, Weigel said. He said Hammond is on probation for a failure to register a conviction in McLean County, and he is not supposed to have contact with juveniles. He was in the presence of the 17-year-old girl, so he was arrested for the probation violation, Weigel said.

He is being held in the Mercer County jail, according to the North Dakota attorney general's sex offender Web site.

(Reach reporter Jenny Michael at 250-8225 or jenny.michael@bismarcktribune.com.)

News > Local

Printer friendly version Sex offenders arrested at DOCR house

Comments

usualsuspect wrote on Aug 16, 2008 1:23 PM:

" Free Will, little fyi: the average brain does not fully develop until about 25. This portion of the brain controls impulse.

I agree that there should be blame on both parties. He was in violation of his probation and knew better. She probably knew where she was and what she was doing. As with half-way houses for drug addicts, homes for offenders are well known in the town in which they reside. There are a variety of reasons that have been mentioned for why this happened. Where are her parents? Really, though...because when I was 17 I jumped out of my two-story house to meet some friends while my parents thought I was sleeping. I had never done anything like that before. i was an honor student, student council member and active in sports. My parents had no idea I was out. Not their fault at all. Blame can be put on anyone you want, but it still won't be the whole truth. Blame the state, the parents, the girl, the offender, the price of gas, the levels of mercury, whatever. It happened because things do happen. Whether they are good or bad, they happen. Learn from it and move on. "

Children First wrote on Jun 10, 2008 11:10 PM:

" To Mom again; I am pretty sure it is not the same girl. He also committed sexual acts on a 6 year old when he was 14 back in 1998. He has only spent 18 months for each crime, the first time was spent in the custody of Social Services the last conviction was in 2006 for the 13 yr old, now again in 2008 for the 17 year old. My guess is that he is not capable of being in society. If you ask me he has used all of his chances to be trusted. I am not sure what the answer is, but in my opinion there needs to be longer sentences appropriate to the crime. There needs to be an actual Rehab Program put in place that is mandatory, and they should be participating in it during their full sentence, not after they are released. Which is how it is set up right now, to the best of my knowledge. "

About Time wrote on Jun 10, 2008 10:33 PM:

" I can think of a place for all the diaper dippers and it is not walking the streets so they can offend again! BECAUSE of them think of the lives of the children they screw up for the rest of their life! Yes CHILDREN COME FIRST, we as parents have to protect them and talking to them and teaching them right from wrong is all good ideas, but it is not always enough and then we have to depend on the law to help protect us and our children and what do they do,,, place them right in a area of town where there is a school IS 4 to 5 blocks a way and all the houses with kids and a home for wayward girls down the street.. OHHH THE DOCR IS SOOO SMART....Young girls and sex offenders within a block of each other.
Yes I believe the PO is trying but he can not be there all the time babysitting these sex offenders,,,the ball has been dropped here and they know it and don't know what to do with these poor people.. What makes me sick is all of the people that feel sorry for the offenders,,,YOU SHOULD FEEL SORRY FOR THE CHILDREN! "

Free Will wrote on Jun 10, 2008 10:12 PM:

" Snap: if the truth is an insult life will be painful. I answered all of your questions, just not what you wanted to hear. Perhaps the language barrier is too great to overcome.

Minors/children will/should continue to be protected. "

Snap wrote on Jun 10, 2008 9:41 PM:

" Free Will

As usual, you did not answer my question. Then, you insult me. Really. Let's not revert to juvenille tactics. If the question is too hard to answer there's no reason to sling insults. I'll leave you alone now.

Mandanite: I honestly thought he is in his 70s. If i am in error, thank you for the correction. "

Mom again wrote on Jun 10, 2008 8:40 PM:

" And why do hyou think the sex offender list keeps growing? If you check out the list of ND sex offenders you will see that there are a lot of persons that are considered sex offenders that should be classified assomething else. Whe you hear the words sex offender you naturally think of a man sexually molesting a child. Why do they not create a sit for child abusers and child neglectors instead of having them to register as a sex offender? This is an issue that really needs to be addresed. I would like to know where everyone thinks these "sex offenders" should live after they are released and how they are to live their lives. One question I have is if the 17 yearf old girl that was caught in this house was by any chanced the gal he went to prison for in the first place? "

To To About Time wrote on Jun 10, 2008 6:57 PM:

" Sheriff Heinert also said that his goal was to make the employees happy. Obviously he's failing badly. How many have left the department already? 19? 20?
Anyway, as for sex offenders, after reading the blog by "Children First" I must fully agree that housing these people in assigned living quarters is not the answer after all. What do we do? The number of sex offenders is growing. It is frightening. How do we protect our children? We need to talk openly with them regarding sex offenders, we need to know who our children are with and where. Yet, another scary statistic is that sex offenders are often a relative or a family friend or people we trust - or a "friend" on the internet. Again, sit down with your kids, talk with them, inform them about sex offenders, and keep open communication. This is vital. "

free will wrote on Jun 10, 2008 5:36 PM:

" Well snap here is the deal: you can vote when you are 18, you can go to war and die when you are 18, and you are deemed able to make choices (that have consequences) when you are 18 without the responsibility being placed back on ma and pa. Human development occurs in stages. Those stages are generally completed by the age 18. Generally. As evidenced by my arguement/discussion/debate/conversations with you sometimes development of conceptionalization of wrong and right are limited. Morality determines law. It is the law of the land. See previous suggestions if you would like to change the world. "

Mandanite wrote on Jun 10, 2008 5:31 PM:

" To Snap: Rod Stewart is only 63, not in his 70s. "

Xommenter wrote on Jun 10, 2008 5:02 PM:

" These sex offenders who live in the housing named in th is article are on parole and that means they had to have gone through the sex offender program at the prison. What does the repeated arrests tell you about the success and quality of the sex offender program rehabilitation these guys are getting? Pretty sad. "

Children First wrote on Jun 10, 2008 4:56 PM:

" If you are not aware of the crimes these two committed originally, Miller had sex with a 13 year old 2 times. Hammond molested his brother and sister when they were 10 and 12. These are the offenders they are moving in there on a regular basis, not offenders who were teenagers and got caught having sex. That is why they are homeless. They have committed terrible crimes. So what if they have probation and aren't considered free, what about these poor children? They are the ONLY victims as far as I can see. "

Xommentor wrote on Jun 10, 2008 4:55 PM:

" To About Time: The place you refer to in Jamestown is the State Hospital although the James River Correctional Unit on the hospital grounds, they are two separate places. If a high risk sex offender is to be housed outside of the prison, it is called civil committment and they are then sent to the State Hospital. Otherwise James River Correctional Unit in Jamestown has inmates who are there because of all sorts of crime, not just sex offenders. This whole issue will not go away on its own and the situation will continue to get worse. There are lots of dangerous people out there on the streets, not just sex offenders and the sooner people get rid of the "it don't happen here, it is safe here" out of their thinking the sooner something might get done. "

TO About Time wrote on Jun 10, 2008 4:40 PM:

" I agree with your agreements and am appreciative that sex offender's names and addresses are posted in the Bismarck Tribune. I'm also in agreement that Steve Berg should consider picking up where he left off by getting back into office. Sheriff Heinert has done exactly what he said he would do and now Burleigh County Sheriff's Department is back in the 50s. "

Children First wrote on Jun 10, 2008 4:39 PM:

" If you feel it is a good idea to keep this kind of house then I suggest you contact DOC and inform them of your willingness to help out by moving them in your neighborhood. I live in the neighborhood and although DOC has made efforts to keep us informed on who is moving in and out, to help us feel safe, it doesn't. My opinion of this facility has not changed. It needs to be in a commercial area if they are going to continue to try to help these guys get on their feet. I personally think they should be on their own to make it just like every other person that comes out of prison. This house is not preventing sexual offenses that is why Miller was arrested this time, and this is his second time since he has lived in that house that he has been arrested. I know the first time wasn't a sexual offense, but apparently they don't feel like they have to follow any of the rules considering that 4 out of 8 have been re arrested. Doesn't seem to me they are very appreciative of the help you are trying to give them. I don't think anyone is benefiting from this experiment. I realize there are offenders all over town, but until you have a house full of High Risk offenders next door, you really can't understand the fear. Just knowing they are going to be gone is a big relief on the whole neighborhood. I hope now that the landlord who owns both that place and the other craphole across the street from it is forced to fix them both up in order to be able to find renters. I do thank you Brian for keeping your word on not renewing the lease, you have no idea how happy that makes us. "

Snap wrote on Jun 10, 2008 4:23 PM:

" Oh Free Will, I think that last sentence is somewhat accusatory.
Let's try a different approach. Now, would you please explain fully and completely why an 18 year old young woman is now ready to have emotional and physical relations with a male of any age--that's right, 18, 24, 36, 48, 60, whatever. You cannot however, merely fall back on "because the law says it's okay."
You know, two years ago pop singer Rod Stewart, a man in his seventies, impregnated his 36 year old wife. There's a 40 year difference in age between them. Now, "The Law" says that when I'm 58 I will be able to have relations with an 18 year old.Please explain your thinking on this matter. "

About Time wrote on Jun 10, 2008 1:34 PM:

" Well I do agree with some of you there should be a place for these offenders, and the fact that they have been releassed from the big house, I know they are still on probation, that does not mean they are FREE, They are not to be around children,yes this mean anyone under the age of 18, weather you think or want to believe a 17 year know right from wrong, it all depends on how they were raised and their enviroment, I do believe there is a place in Jamestown for these HIGH RISK offenders, and is safer then the streets of Bismarck. These 2 men are not the first to be let out and by far are not the worst to have been let out. There are high risk diaper dippers that are walking the streets of Bismarck Mandan, and who I refer to as diaper dippers are the offenders that get off on children under the age of 10!!! Yes it makes me sick to think another girl was even touched by a offender,(even if she was willing and under age) it was still wrong and the offender knew that. There is no excuess for anything any of it. But I just want you all aware that these two men are not the worst ones the State of North Dakota has walking the streets. And yes the best thing you can do is keep a close eye on them. If that means getting away from the T.V or taking time away from what you want to do and spending more time with your kids I guess that is what is wrong with things these days. Kids want more freedom and parents give it to them, that way they dont have to spend the time with them.
I guess if you want your kids safe you are the only one that can do that, don't expect someone else to do it. Cause it could be the neighbor that likes the younger ones and not the 17 year olds. "

Free Will wrote on Jun 10, 2008 7:26 AM:

" Snap: If going to college means being open to having minors and adults engaged in sexual activity. You can keep your education. You can use whatever words you would like, attempting to belittle posters who think differently or judging them based on their education does not make your side of the debate/argument correct. By the way one definition of debate is: to engage in arguement or discussion. Some call it paraphrasing perhaps you learned that in college. If you would like to attack my opinion feel free, if you disagree with my morality go ahead, but stay on topic. You are arguing on behalf of a person who sexually assualted 13 year olds, think about that.

The website www.nd.gov has the link to the offenders list and what offenses can result in being placed on the list. "

Snap wrote on Jun 10, 2008 4:59 AM:

" Sigh,

And you, Free Will, always focus on "THE LAW" as it stands. That is your "one point." The law, however, changes from county to county, state to state, and country to country.
And no, I do not "blur" anything. Also, I did not lecure you, nor did I ever mention debate. Debate is very different than argument. Again, you confuse the language. perhaps higher education would not be such a bad idea. "

Free Will wrote on Jun 9, 2008 10:43 PM:

" Did some checking. Yep, if you are convicted of using drugs to lure or solicit a minor you may be added to the sex offender list. You may not be required to register but you are considered a danger to children.

Snap: Point counter point would be great but you only have one point. You seem to think it is OK for adults to have sexual relationships with minors. There is no definition of a young adult in the eyes of the law. They are minors or adults. Your attempt to blur the issue is a weak attempt at that. If you feel wronged bring it before the people. ND has some of the easiest means of bringing public referendums to a vote. You could introduce a bill at the next legislative assembly.
If you think it is a matter of public concern ea grant and visit schools warning young men about the dangers of sex with young women. Give them your examples of how the law is creating sexual deviants and site CNN and whatever other web sources you can find.
Thank You for the lecture on debate: I may not be a college graduate, but I done did learn not to think with my pants. :) "

Laura wrote on Jun 9, 2008 10:42 PM:

" I agree that DOCR needs a residence for sex offenders who have been released from prison since we don't want them homeless on the streets where they can't be monitored and our children are left unprotected from them. Since our area has multiple offenders and usually several of them living in the same dwelling at once, there should be a responsible person assigned to that dwelling who has oversight of these offenders, much the same as a halfway house. Yes, it would cost the taxpayers extra dollars, but it would be money well spent in an attempt to prevent reoffending and to safeguard our children. I am grateful for the BPD officers who do check up on these offenders. This must be made a priority even though some of our law enforcement agencies are shorthanded - especially the Burleigh sheriff's department. If any more officers resign under our new sheriff Heinert, they're going to have to start recruiting employees from Bis/Man Security. "

Snap wrote on Jun 9, 2008 6:15 PM:

" Free Will:
As usual, you do not address my points. I suspect it's a language barrier problem. I am precise with my words.
For example, I write about young women and you end up firing back about "children." There is a distinct difference between these terms. Argument should be a point followed by a precise counter point. We need to stay "on topic," a leson every first year college student learns.
I have never condoned true pedophilia--the molestation of children by an adult. I DO however, continue to argue that the law is unjust regarding "adult" men and "teenage girls."
I saw on CNN yesterday that a 13-year old girl has had two men sent to jail--so far. She claims she is a 20 year old divorcee. The last fellow, once he found out her real age, stopped all relations and communication with her. However, he decided to her father what happened. The father decided to report him and have him sent to jail. He just got a year in jail.
Nice. Boy, those poor, sweet, naive, teenage girls. I sure do feel bad for them and understand why they need protection from all those big bad male predators. "

lone wolf wrote on Jun 9, 2008 2:23 PM:

" those of you who choose to protect the sex offenders make me sick.

I am sorry that some of you think your sons have done nothing wrong. He was 17 she was 14. what ever. may if it was 17 and 16, but... You knew that your son was 17 doing what ever behing closed dorrs and both parents had beed ok with this? if that is true the should have locked up the parents also.

Remind me to put you in for parent of the year. "

Other Bismarck Resident wrote on Jun 9, 2008 11:25 AM:

" To Free Will: Ask the state of ND or better yet DOCR "

ND Resident wrote on Jun 9, 2008 10:15 AM:

" If you didn't think kids didn't have sex back in the 50's or earlier you are kidding yourself. It was not talked about and the kids got married and took responsibility for their mistakes - both of them, not anyone else and not the court system. to the mom of the sex offenders who are labeled wrongly my heart goes not to you. I know there are girls out there that are big "teases". They don't deserve to be "rapped" but they also need to be accountable for their actions. Each case needs to be viewed and decided on all points. Yes, the offenders that are any age and abusing young children should be locked up, and old men for example that are 40's, 50's etc preying on young children and teens should be locked up! There is a difference between Dru's case and the teens that were 14 & 17 and took pictures. "

another mother of sex offender wrote on Jun 8, 2008 9:15 PM:

" My so n was convicted of having sex with his girlfriend who was under age. She was 14 and he was 17, eleven years ago. When he was 18 he had a falling out with a buddy of his and he turned him in. The girl lifted her shirt and had him take pictures of her chest. They had known each other for many years growing up. Her parents were ok with them being together. Picture was turned into the police and the state prosecuted my son. He spent time in the ND State Penn. He got out and was not able to find a job or anypolace other to live but in my home. He got mixed up in a bad crowd and again wound up in the Penn becoming a life time registrant for duct taping (along with several other individuals)a 17 year old. They were charged with feloneous restraint on a minor (boy) and hence classified him as a low risk, lifetime registrant sex offender. He is almost 29 years old and still not able to get a job and still living in my household. I agree the laws need to be changed to classify real sex offenders and not have individual like this be labeled and make life worse in our society. There are sexual preditors out there that need to be dealt with in the strictest manner. These childhood to adulthood antics need to be looked at in a different aspect. "

smom of teens wrote on Jun 8, 2008 12:29 PM:

" to all who think this is an issue of parenting: I will agree that it is to an extent, but what about the fact that many (not all) teens lie to get what they want. This girl could have (I am not saying she did) been lying to her parents about where she has been and what she has been doing. Her parents may not feel they have had a reason to not trust her. We don't know the whole story about the teen or her parents. It is easy to say it is an issue of parenting, but the fact of the matter is that we do not know the full extent of the relationship between the teen and parents. Give the parents a break. We are all doing the best that we can. I am not saying that her parents are not too permissive, only that we don't knkow the whole story... Keep that in mind when you pass judgment... "

Free will wrote on Jun 7, 2008 6:14 PM:

" How do you become a sex offender because of a drug offense? "

Other Bismarck Resident wrote on Jun 7, 2008 3:35 PM:

" My family member was convicted of a drug offense. "

free will wrote on Jun 6, 2008 9:03 PM:

" I posted what the offenders had done to get the classification and it was not posted. Look up these individuals names on the website and these are not those who have one offense and they are not people who were wrongfully acussed (3X). STOP trying to make these criminals out to be the victims. They were convicted they are the criminal and they violated probation. DOCR has their hands full with these deviants and keeping track of them. If you have been wrongfully accused my heart goes out to you BUT those that are deserving of the label don't deserve much. "

Parent of teen wrote on Jun 6, 2008 6:20 PM:

" Bottom line: these teens should not be having sex for a variety of reasons, these sex offenders didn't get the rap because they treat females and children with respect, and these sex offenders are NOT suppose to be around children, so even if the teen was there and willing, the sex offender has to say NO, I can't be around you. In fact the sex offender needs to realize the ramifications of what he has done in the past and not even allow the circumstances to get that far that the the teen is in his presence at all. If the sex offender does not do that, or cannot do that, he needs to be back in prison starting at square one and learn that he cannot be near children!! Bottom line. "

Mom wrote on Jun 6, 2008 5:31 PM:

" to Other Bismarck Resident; just out of curiousity, what did your family member do to get the title of sex offender? "

Other Bismarck Resident wrote on Jun 6, 2008 5:01 PM:

" You hit it, good ol' boys network is alive and well. I feel like we are living in the deep south during the civil rights movement. Law enforcement and DOCR can and do whatever they want, within or without the boundaries of the law. And not only is it not stopped, it is encourage by the judges in the state.
Wouldn't the communities be better served and safer if they truly concentrated their efforts on the high risk ones? Quit being ridiculous to the people that will never commit a sex crime or re-offend, quit trying to do what you can to push them over the edge and MAKE them re-offend so you can send them back to prison. Spend your time, money, and resources policing the Rodrigez's of the state so THAT doesn't happen again. "

Other Bismarck Resident wrote on Jun 6, 2008 5:00 PM:

" to Xommentor, it makes us feel somewhat comforted to know that our family isn't the only famlly that can't even find an attorney in the state of ND that will represent someone with the label of a sex offender. Period. Doesn't matter guilt, innocence, violent predator, ridiculously called a sex offender for the rest of their life, UNJUSTLY labeled a sex offender, it just doesn't matter. But don't give up, there are lawyers in MN, SD, and lawyers that can practice in Federal District courts that WILL fight against the ridiculous mentality in this state. Unfortunately, you are right, they are only for the rich. Still, widen your search for an atty. outside this state and you will find good, decent, respectable firms and independent attorneys to represent your son.

Unfortunately for my family member, they made the mistake of spending thousands and thousands of dollars on four different psychological exams and evaluations, from three different psychologist, to show that they really aren't a sex offender and don't want children for sex or to rape and kill unsuspecting women. (Instead of getting a good atty. from out of state) They have said over and over this person is not a sex offender, in the past or now, no risk, etc., etc. etc., but still the state of ND, and in particular, DOCR says, we don't care. We decide, we hand out judgments and sentences, over and above what is allowed by law. We know better than the judges, and judges continue to allow this, with their endorsement. Saying a PO would know better than they do. How ridiculous! Can judges really be that ignorant? "

Xommentor wrote on Jun 6, 2008 3:05 PM:

" To Other Bismarck Resident: Thank you for your words. I found the ring of truth in them refreshing. My grandchildren are living in the same town my son is coming "home" to. They will be given a bad time about him. My daughter runs a business and she will likely suffer from this financially as well. There are no words to describe the horror my family and I have endured for 5 years and to think the worst is yet to come makes me ill. He would like to try to clear his name but that will take money and lot of it as he will have to get an out of state lawyer because the ND good old boy network is strong here and no lawyer here would do him any good. I have talked to several and first they turn pale and then they come up with excuses. The head of the ND Sex Offender Rehab Program said that if you do not admit to your crime you cannot be in the program and if you are not in the program, you loose good time and most likely get sent to an out of state prison. Both happened to my son. So you have to say you are guilty whether you are or not because as the head of the program said, no one in any prison is innocent, all prisoners are guilty. This type of dead-head mentality is in charge of a program that does not workin the first place. I look at my son and see a man who will probably never by a husband, father or allowed to be useful. He is talented and intelligent but no prospects ever. Thanks Other Resident for being able to see the other side of the issue. It is hard to think there are people who want to torture and kill my son for something he did not do but got caught in circumstances that gave him a label he does not deserve. "

Other Bismarck Resident wrote on Jun 6, 2008 1:38 PM:

" I would like to think there might be a SPECK of an attempt to support efforts offender's make to do right by society and maybe even attempt to pay back or give back to society now that they have turned their life around. I am pretty sure my family member would rather be rotting in prison than living in ND with DOCR and the public opinion of him, even though the only people on earth that think they are a sex offender is DOCR. But that offender instead leaves with your mindless comments to castrate all of em, hang em, throw em in jail for the rest of their lives, they are unredeemable, worthless beings. Guess what, some people who commit crimes actually do server their time and change their lives and attempt to become a contributing member of society. Too bad ND employers and neighbors and DOCR do everything in their power to make them pay for the rest of their lives. NO ONE gives an offender a chance to even prove themselves rehabilitated. They are all put in the same category as Rodrigez. Blanket judgments, sentences, and labeling is a dangerous road. But apparently it is the only road the citizens of ND know.
I pity your son having to come out to this environment. He would be better off staying where he is. He will have no life to come out to and you will be harrassed and ostricized by pretty much everyone you know. "

Other Bismarck Resident wrote on Jun 6, 2008 1:37 PM:

" DOCR will keep them offenders their own children and families and won't even allowed supervised visitation, even if their victimes were not children. There is NO LIFE in ND for anyone DOCR thinks needs to be a sex offender. It doens't matter what judges say either. Judges can enter into binding plea agreements with offenders saying they are NOT required to register and that they CAN see their kids on supervised visitation, but DOCR makes their own laws and treats EVERY sex offender like the one's that kill the Dru Sjidon's of the world and blatantly disregard anything set up by a judge. In ND, DOCR is THE judge, they hand out sentences and punishments at their own whim, and the judges in the state totally support it.
I would think judges would consider themselve more educated and knowledgable about laws and justice than a probation officer, and to have more authority to hand out sentences and punishments than DOCR.
DOCR will sabatoge any effort the offender makes to become a better person and on a routine basis remind the offender that they are the scum of the earth with no right to life. I find it quite amusing that the director of DOCR, Ms. Bosch makes a statement in the paper that they WILL find housing for the homeless sex offenders because she promised them she would. I wonder if she has any idea how her employees talk to the offenders she makes promises to? There is no Rehab in DOCR, they need to drop it from their name. Instead they will do whatever it takes to find a way to push the people they supervise to RE-OFFEND so they can send them back to prison. Believe me, I have a family member who gets told that on a regular basis by his probation officer. Do you want your family member to be the next victim so the probation officer can 'do his job' and sent the offender back to prison? I don't. "

Other Bismarck Resident wrote on Jun 6, 2008 1:34 PM:

" Xommentor, you have no idea how true it is that sex offenders have no life to come out too. Even if they aren't level 3. Even when it is wrongful conviction, or a juvinile having consensual sex with another juvinile, it doesn't matter if the offender is a violent sexual predator or something else entirely. There is NO life for any of them in ND. They will never have a job that pays a decent salary, (their PO's will make sure of that,) they will never have a place to live without harassment from neighbors and the public in general, especially many who post on the Tribune website. "

Free Will wrote on Jun 6, 2008 8:21 AM:

" Snap:
The morality aside was in relation to why I chose my screen name.
Morality is inevitable. Whether yours are low or high in the court of public opinion we all have morals which guide us in our decision making process. I believe that kids need to be protected. Regardless of what they have been exposed to, regardless of what level of maturity they may physically have, regardless of how sweet or sexually inquizative they are. You want a 17 year old to be the responsible party vs. the adult. You want to blame a kid. I again challenge you to look at the offenders website and try to defend those individuals who have preyed on children.

A trial is a case by case situation. A Law covers everyone.

I am not telling people to break the law I am saying that those who are mature enough to understand the law also understand what it takes to not get caught. It is the men who go around bragging about their conquests that get caught or that they manipulated the girl and she figures it out and reports it to someone.
I don't advocate breaking the law. Don't have sex until it is legal. Unfortunately (this is where my morality shows through) two consenting 16 year olds can have sex with only STD's and pregnancy as a deterance. "

To you all wrote on Jun 5, 2008 8:37 PM:

" There is too much immorality and sexual exploitation in this world and we in Bismarck/Mandan need to think and teach our youth what is right behavior. As mentioned earlier. Hopefully former Sheriff Berg will consider running again and provide his solid leadership as just part of the solution. "

Snap wrote on Jun 5, 2008 6:03 PM:

" Free Will:

First, "morality aside?" How convenient. It's easier to brush an issue aside than to deal with it.
Second, you did not truly address "ponderings" post. You say it's okay to have sex with a minor as long as they tell no one and eventually get married. But wait! That's not "THE LAW" that you adhere to!
Third, please contact the on-line editor and he/she will tell you that I have not written half the posts under multiple pseudonyms.
Finally, you and some other posters need to consider that not all teenage girls are not the sweet, innocent, naive people that you want to believe, and that not all males are the evil predators that lead these poor girls astray. I would argue that it's quite the reverse. We all accept the fact that girls mature faster and are more socially intelligent than males, so why is that lost in these cases of older males and younger women? And it has nothing to do with "the 1950s" myth of a more innocent time. That's hogwash. Nope, I still argue that these cases need to be tried on a case by case basis, not a sweeping law that holds to arbitrary numbers for ages (as if THAT means anything), and the concept that males are hungry wolf predators and all youg girls are sweet naive lambs. "

See what happens wrote on Jun 5, 2008 5:10 PM:

" The DOC is right in renting properties to house sex offenders and keep an eye on them. However there needs to be a lot of work done in making sure it isn't in areas where offenders have close access to possible new victims of sex crimes. Law enforcment is doing a good job in Bismarck due to the leadership at BPD and P& P. Wish could say the same with the Burleigh County Sheriff's Office. Hopefully that will improve after Sheriff Heinert's term is done and Steve Berg is back in office. Sheriff Berg will help improve and elevate LE in the County again! "

Free Will wrote on Jun 5, 2008 2:45 PM:

" This board would beneifit from a spell check/edit so my comit wasn't a comment. And others too numerous to mention. "

Free Will wrote on Jun 5, 2008 8:16 AM:

" Xommentor: if your son did not comment the crime and has been wrongfully convicted that is an entirely different stroy. It would be somewhat naive to think that the situation you describe hasn't happened and won't happen again. I do feel for the families of sex offenders but for those guilty of the crime I feel no pity. I base my comments on the law and unfortunately the manner in which the law is carried out is not 100% perfect. On the other hand reading the offenses that those on the list have been convicted, shows a history of violent and sexually deviant abuse. Those abuses against children are difficult to read and are unexcusable actions that merit harsh punishment. "

Parent of Teen wrote on Jun 4, 2008 10:56 PM:

" I didn't say my teen was pefect, but I am trying to teach her to respect herself so she can make the right decisions. Sure, teens are having sex, but that doesn't make it right. Sure, it's not the 50's anymore, and that's where society has gotten weak. Just because it is more accepted that teens are having sex doesn't mean they are any more emotionally ready for it than in the 50's. They have a lot more knowledge these days, but that doesn't mean they are mature enough to process it. I would hate to see my teen give in and make the wrong decision, only to regret it and resent herself later on or wish she had waited until she was more ready and had more of an understanding of what it is and what it can be. Are you blaming me for that? If it was OK for teens to have sex there wouldn't be laws against it. "

Xommentor wrote on Jun 4, 2008 7:19 PM:

" To free will, et al, my son is on that third tier/highest level. He is due to be released soon. He was denied parole so when he gets out, he will not have any obligation to anyone except to register. I wish I could post his court transcript so people could see how he got imprisoned for something he did not do and lost appeal. There was and is no money that would be required to get a new trial, etc. He has spent five years and I wish they would keep him for the rest of his life. Why? Because he has no life to come out to. Where will he live, where will he work, who will be his friend. Once that brand is given, it is not removeable. My family is going to face ostracism and harassment and we are bracing ourselves but it is going to be hard and painful and just plain awful. ND needs to fix it so sex offenders (the real ones) remain locked up if for no other reason than they have no life to come out to. There must be an answer somewhere, but what? "

Kara wrote on Jun 4, 2008 6:36 PM:

" Parent of Teen - Sorry to inform you, and maybe your teen is perfect, or else, GASP, hides stuff from you, but it isn't rare for 16, 17, and 18 year olds to have sex. We aren't in the 50's anymore. The sex offender isn't taking the kid into the "world" you speak of... she's doing it herself. A 17 year old is old enough to know what she's doing...
Don't get me wrong, I don't support sex offenders in any way.. but maybe instead of always blaming them, we should look at the teenager and... chew me out, but.... their PARENTS. "

free Will wrote on Jun 4, 2008 3:08 PM:

" Morality aside: free will is the ability of each person to choose as they wish with full knowledge of the fact that for every action there is a consequence. You can choose to have a sexual relationship with any person you choose (in some cases willing or not). However, just because we have free will doesn't mean that we (people) have not set up rules which have consequences. I think I addressed ponderings post. And I again challenge you to look at the sex offenders website and look at those on the third tier/highest level and you will not find any that deserve your pity. These are predators.
And yes relationships involving sex should in my opinion be loving. SEX just for sex may be fine for consenting mature adults but when one person is clearing in charge it is another story. "

Parent of Teen wrote on Jun 4, 2008 12:35 AM:

" Snap, Your blog is exactly what scares me. I am the parent of a teen daughter, and I am trying to teach her respect for herself and what love is all about, really loving someone unselfishly. Love today appears to be losing out to lust and personal gratification, and I don't want my daughter used like that by someone who is more worried about her age and his consequences than what it would be doing to my teen. The law is as it is to protect these kids until they are ready to take on the adult world and all that comes with it. They aren't ready!! And some sex offender using them is certainly not a healthy picture of what sex should be. Hopefully they stay clean and don't have to deal with a lifetime disease or life-threatening disease! Surely those that have to look to teenagers for sex can't be that revolting that they can't find someone older who would be interested, or are they? No wonder marriages don't last anymore, these kids have already played in the adult world and it has to be a letdown, and they must be bored by the time they turn 21. "

Mom wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:39 PM:

" to Kara; do the math, there are 7 years between the guy and the girl (not 5). Anytime there is a minor involved (under 18) and the adult is at least 4 years older than the minor they can be charged with a sexual predator crime. Therefore , those of you who worry about teens going out and getting a criminal record for acting on their hormones, don't worry, it doesn't work that way. The article says that the house is doing what it's supposed to. I don't think the house has anything to do with it. If the guy was on probation or parole his p.o. can come to his residence at anytime no matter where he lives and at any time. I also wanted to point out that in the paper the headline for this article was something to the effect of "Teen gets offender charged". I don't think that was a very good choice of titles. The 'teen' didn't 'get' the man in trouble, he did that to himself! "

No pity wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:58 PM:

" Who cares if she lied about her age? He was already in prison once. Maybe he'll learn next time? I think if I went to prison for a sex offense, I'd definitely be a hell of a lot more careful next time and not trust anybody based on what they said. . . YES card if you have to. I don't feel sorry for the sex offender guy at all, even if he was lied to - how many times can you really be THAT stupid? "

Bismarck Resident wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:49 PM:

" yeah people think that this house is such a great idea because then we know where they are at but how many of you realize that anywhere throughout this town there can be a sex offender here from another state and they didn't register here and might possibly not even suppose to be here and living right next door to you. There was one that was in bismarck last summer and trust me I did everything in my power \to get him out of here and away from our children and we had to call to another state and make sure that they got a warrent for his arrest before the bismarck police department would do anything about it and yet it still took two calls for them to go and arrest him yeah kids do have sex these days but I am sure that all adults should know the laws by now and if they wanted to be with the person then they should wait til they are of age so they put themselves on the line noone else. "

Snap wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:42 PM:

" ps:

And why do relationships involving sex have to be "loving relationships?"
That sounds like an opinion to me, and a heavily moralizing one. "

Snap wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:40 PM:

" Hmmm. Now how does does someone name his/herself "Free Will," yet immediately hold fast to the set in stone, right and wrong idea of "the law."
What is your response to "ponderings" post? "

Neighborhood Resident wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:35 PM:

" Bis Resident, this house is in my neighborhood. The people in the neighborhood are not very happy with the situation, when the neighborhood was being evaluated to see if the residents would agree to the condition the officials surveyed approximately a 1 block radius from the house. I live 2 blocks away myself, but just over 1 block away is a home for wayward teenage girls. I think it would be quite interesting to find out who bought the house and rented it to the DOCN for this purpose and how much money is being exchanged. "

Enough wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:22 PM:

" my hero mr weigel "

Free Will wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:44 PM:

" Snap,
First it is the law, see ignorance comment.
Second this are opinions, I choose"The LAW" not your opinion.
Third how does anyone know that you haven't posted half of the other posts.
Finally just my opinion, the scenerio of dating someone younger than 18 and eventually getting married is perfectly fine. General, I don't think that people who care enough about each other to get married are going to tell everyone and there dog that they are having sex. I also think that if they care about each other they can wait. The entire arguement is that everyone should be having sex whenever and with whoever. Look at the registered offenders website some time and tell me that the acts against minors were loving relationships. "

Parent of Teen wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:34 PM:

" These blogs kind of reinforce what I have said about society. Everyone is all up in arms if she was 17 and lied about her age, if it was concentual, and all that, but no one seems to care that this child is having sex at all. In the case of the dating pair 50 years ago, sex wasn't the next step after meeting someone back then, so they probably weren't breaking any laws, old or current, by being together and falling in love. By some of these blogs, it sounds like sex is expected and you maybe don't even have to know the girls name, just her age. Sad. Does anyone care that sex at 16 or 17 or 18 probably isn't right, probably shows children playing in an adult world and getting hurt by being involved in things they can physically handle but not emotionally? These sex offenders are taking these kids into a world they are not ready for. Does anyone care about that? Does anyone notice that teen sex is not shocking or not a cause for concern? "

Snap wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:17 PM:

" Hey Free Will:

Looks like most the comments are on my side of the issue this time. Are you going to preach down to all these people as you did to me? "

free will wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:16 PM:

" Pondering: regardless of what your family relationships have been, it doesn't change the law. Great for your parents. And if a 20 something becomes friends with a 16 year old and the relationship grows into something more than friendship and eventually a physical relationship that is fine. I would hope that people today understand the law and follow it because the consequences are steep. And there is no "ignorance plea".

MSLGW still waiting to see that this has happened in ND. "

Kara wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:09 PM:

" Racist Biker - I think in that case, its up to the jury. In high school we went to a case like this and if the sex offender has proof that he was told she was 18, the jury will typically find him not guilty. But if the girl, or maybe a friend that was present, testifies and says she told the sex offender the correct age, then its pretty obvious and he'll be guilty. "

Kara wrote on Jun 3, 2008 3:32 PM:

" I do agree that this is still wrong even though it was consensual, but it's not like the guy was 35 years old... he is only 5 years older than the girl, which isn't something most people think is wrong. I think that if she chooses to be around these men when she knows of his crimes, then it's her choice. Maybe they could make some kind of a maiver to sign for people under 18 that choose to be around and have consensual sex with sex offenders stating that they know about the sex crimes committed and are taking that risk. Doubt that would ever happen though... "

TrekGirl wrote on Jun 3, 2008 3:31 PM:

" She's 17 and was there of her own free will. Honestly, I can't agree, from this case alone, with the statement, "It actually shows how this house is working to stop sexual offenses." I think the house is a great idea, but it takes much more than herding a few homeless sex offenders into a house and the police occasionally dropping by to make any real difference. "

Pondering... wrote on Jun 3, 2008 2:57 PM:

" Personally, I do not know any sex offenders...what is a "sex offender"?

My Dad was 24 when he met my 16 year old Mom. If they had a sexual relationship before they married, he would have been labeled a sex offender and his life would have been ruined forever. He would have been on a list! Are we so sure that things are better now than they were 50 years ago? No--Mom and Dad got married, raised 3 children and he died just short of their 50th wedding anniversary. The way society looked at this issue 50 years ago was a young lady dating a young man. There was no "label" of "sexual offender".

I have no idea of the "crimes" of these men, but is it possible that their original offense was nothing more than a young lady (under 18) dating a young man (over 18)? "

Parent of teen wrote on Jun 3, 2008 2:35 PM:

" I also want to comment on the sex offenders living in that house. It's a great idea. It isn't 100%, of course not, but it sure is better than these offenders living wherever they want, which could be anywhere! At least here there is a chance they will get caught. Knowing where they are living and having just that little bit of control does make a difference. I think anywhere they live that they are acountable to law enforcement in any way can't hurt a thing. If they weren't living in that particular house, but say, the house next door without someone monitoring them, well.... we still wouldn't know what they were up to. As much as people would like to lock them away it isn't possible, so be satisfied with the next best thing and have them in monitored living arrangements. "

Parent of teen wrote on Jun 3, 2008 2:31 PM:

" To Bismarck Resident: I so agree with you!! Parents need to take back control and become parents, doing their job which is to be responsible for the safety and well being of their kids. However, currently society has gone soft and is afraid of this generation. No one stands up to these kids, and when parents try they are the laughing stock from society and other parents. My teen is well monitored, but since she hangs with friends who have no guidelines she assumes she doesn't have any either. This causes major problems for our family. If other parents were on the same page, our jobs would be easier, but some parents would rather not put in the time to know where their kids are, or to set some expectations for their kids, or to support other parents who have expectations. Society is so forgiving that kids would rather listen to it than their parents, and some parents don't want to face the challenge of a defiant kid, so the kids rule the roost. So we all suffer. There are several ways parents can know where their kids are. Have their kids call from landlines (Caller ID), have their kids take a picture of where they say they are and email it (we've all provided our children with high tech phones).... there are ways parents can track their kids if they are suspicious of where they are. Some just don't want to be bothered and would rather get their sleep, I guess. Makes it mighty hard for those of us who DO care where our kids are. "

Racist Biker wrote on Jun 3, 2008 2:26 PM:

" So if I meet a girl/young woman that looks 18 and says she's at least 18 am I going to have to card her to protect myself? What happens if it is found out that the young woman told this guy she was 18? Will he still go to jail? If so that is messed up. "

haze wrote on Jun 3, 2008 1:33 PM:

" To Donna - yeah - maybe the 17 year olds who's parents don't care and don't watch them are having sex. Way too general of a comment to say they all are. Some kids are being brought up with morals. "

free will wrote on Jun 3, 2008 1:32 PM:

" All who are calling for penalties for the 17 year old etc... Let's try and remember that it takes two to have consensual sex. And if the adult (male) in this particular case needs to say no then that is what needs to happen. By saying that she wanted to do it and knew why she was there and what she was doing we are excusing every guy that takes advantage of someone less experienced and ill prepared for this kind of incounter. "

Economic Conservative wrote on Jun 3, 2008 1:24 PM:

" To: Freewill: it is really sad when someone doesn't even know the way government works and publically diaplays thier ignorance. So, the Governor's cabinet members are elected, are they now? They are hand picked and appointed, usually as a reward for lotalty and in Hoeven's case, for service in hisx campaign, as in the case of Carol Olson. In any event, NDDOCR is under the cotrol of a Hoeven appointee, Leann Bertsch. I strongly suggest you double check your fcats before you embarass yourself again. As for you, The Point, you obviously read the papers, sexual offenses in this state are treated lightly, and offenders aginst children are routinely handed out minimal sentences. ND has become a haven for these kinds of criminals and you are kidding yourself if you think these two will get anything more than a slap on the wrist. Under the bleeding heart liberalism of Hoeven and his appointee, sexual offenders will be "treated" by DOCR rather than locked away like they should be. The only positive thing about this incident is the offender is working his way up to adults: his previous two victims were a 6 year old and a 13 year old, according to the sex offender website. Yeah, I want him loose on the streets with my kids. "

About Time wrote on Jun 3, 2008 12:23 PM:

" I am sooo glad they have done this as I have said time and time again that this would happen,, It took 4 mts to show that it would happen and it did, by the way these two men are not the first ones to live in this house for HIGH RISK offenders! But they are the first to get caught. We all have our blinders on if we think this is the first time,, look at Drew, do we need a Drew to happen here in Bismarck??? Before something is done with this place for high risk offenders! "

sarahr wrote on Jun 3, 2008 12:20 PM:

" To Donna...you are right...but, when i was 17 which wasn't too long ago...that was the last thing on my mind!!!!!!!!! "

ND resident wrote on Jun 3, 2008 12:20 PM:

" To Donna: I agree, that 17 yr old girl wanted to be there, and please don't tell us she didn't know what she was doing or getting herself into. When is this system also going to make the girls accountable for their actions. There are some young males marked for life while nothing is done to the girl who want to have consensual sex and then decides down the road they made a mistake or have been jilted so lets cry "rape" and totally ruin another human beings life. Like with all things such as sex, drinking, smoking, etc. Parents can talk to their kids until they are blue in the face, and "some" kids are still going to experiment - call it plain old peer pressure, or total defince, etc. kids have not changed that much over the years. "

donna wrote on Jun 3, 2008 11:48 AM:

" a 17 year old girl is most likely there because she wants to be. most 17 year olds are having sex and they are having sex with "real men" 18 years and older. i see it every day where i work. sometimes it is a crime, sometimes it is not... it just depends on who's in on it. kids under 18 have been having sex since the beginning of time. a 17 year old is not a child..... "

HELLO wrote on Jun 3, 2008 11:17 AM:

" These guys were released from prison because they served there sentence. Had they not been in this house they would of been in an apt building or maybe the house next door to you. Then there would of been no way of knowing this man was with the 17 year old. I think the Dept of Corrections has a great idea in renting the house and keeping the offenders in a known location with frequent checks. Great job Mr. Weigel in catching this in less than a week! "

Free Will wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:23 AM:

" OK, first I want to know exactly which level III teen offender is on that status for consensual sex. The names are available you just hand them over. Rickey who and is this his story and is this in ND. Second blaming the Gov. regardless of who is in office in this state is a weak attack at best. ND has one of if not the weakest executive branches in the nation. His cabinet is elected, they answer to the people not to the gov. Last why are people constantly defending sexual activity with minors. Here is a thought, they are trying to justify there own criminal ideology. Having sex is NOT a requirement of a relationship. If you don't know how old they are get to know them better before diving into bed with them. If you don't know them well enough to know their B-Day you don't know them well enough to have sex. "

The Point wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:56 AM:

" To: Economic Conservative: Consider this... What if these two sex offenders were living in this house and NOT rented by the Dept. of Corrections? And these two offenders would NOT be subject to random, frequent visits by parole officers? How long would this activity have gone on. Let's face it, these two guys were released from prison. They have no place to live. Is the community safer with them in a place like this, or on the streets? What if they would take off from the parole officers? Is the community safer if they don't know where they are? Hopefully these guys get the max from the judge, but eventually they will be released from prison again. Then what? "

Economic Conservative wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:49 AM:

" Hummm, now the age of 24 is considered a "teen"? Come on MSLGW, quit trying to make excuses for adults who don't want to take responsibility for their actions. This guy is a predator, nothing more and nothing less. "

Bis Resident wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:30 AM:

" Would you want this type of person living in your neighborhood? No me! "

teens need adult guidance wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:29 AM:

" Honestly people, statements like "teens do what teens do" Come on, I think it's time adults or better stated parents, should wake up and be responsible, just because teenagers have sexual maturity doesn't mean they have emotional maturity. As parents we need to be aware of this. If left unsupervised and given adult rights, they will soon get them into adult situations. I think it is time parents became parents again instead of their kids buddies and started to monitor where their kids are. If you truly love your children you will do this. "

MSLGW wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:25 AM:

" Bismarck Resident , I totally agree with you. It is good parenting not bad law that is the solution. Many, many people are on the registry who don't need to be there.
One example out of many is Rickyslife dot com. Ricky was 16 had consensual sex with a girl he met at a teen club where admission was 16 minimum. She lied to him, he fell in love and as a result is lifetime registration on tier three. Predator/pedophile/rapist and whatever other stigma is attached to that. And for what? Doing what teens do all the time. Yet girls can go to planned parenthood and get birth control without parental consent and they are not told anything about the age of consent. "

MSLGW wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:17 AM:

" It doesn't take much to become a sex offender today. True, this man certainly had to know the conditions of his parole. The magic number in this case is 18. She was 17.
My point is that many teens are being put on the registry, even level III Tier life time registration for nothing more than consensual sex. Teens do what teens do. They don't card each other.
When they're young, they lie about their age in order to attract older boys or young men. When they get older the lie about their age to make people they're younger. Children as young as 4 have been put on the registry. The system is broken "

Economic Conservative wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:07 AM:

" Just magnificient, seems that now the tax payers in this state are paying a house of ill repute for sex offenders. I am particularly amused by " Weigel said the offenders living in the home are placed under the highest level of security, which includes unannounced visits such as the one on Friday." Yep, that is a high level of security. Sex offenders can bring in minors, and we can only hope that it's during one of these unannounced surprise visits! Once again the "bleeding heart" Hoeven Administartion is playing the citizens of Bismarck/ Mandan North Dakota as fools! If this latest idiotic policy doesn't show up this "popular Governor and his administration for what he really stands for, then we will continue to get what we deserve from him, a safe haven for sex offenders and no safety for our women and children. Move them into the governor's mansion and get them off streets. The security there is better than this house they have set up in our neighborhoods. "

Bismarck Resident wrote on Jun 3, 2008 6:18 AM:

" yeah it was caught that she was there but how sad is it that it still took a week to figure out that he was seeing her and another thing what parent lets thier child hang out with someone like that I can tell you right now when my child is 17 I am going to want to know where she is because I am a very protective mom I see so many out there that aren't protective of thier children but now a days you have to be look what is out there. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.