MN DOC photos
It appears Junaid Daulah Maalik may simply use 3024 6th St. N. as his "official" address, while actually spending most of his time elsewhere. Exactly where? Who knows? Maybe right next door to where you live, if you live in the Twin Cities...
I've known about this situation for a while, but people in my neighborhood were working behind the scenes to resolve exactly what it going on at 3024 6th Street North. There was concern other sex offenders and parolees might be "using" the house as their official address. There were, in fact, consistent rumors to this effect in the neighborhood.
However, currently it appears Maalik is the only offender living at that address. And after July 2, he might not be living there. Where will he live?
Before I get into all the nitty gritty of his apparent living situation, let me tell you what Junaid was convicted of doing, according to a Minnesota Department of Corrections website.
[Junaid Maalik] engaged in forced sexual contact with 12-year-old female victim. The contact included kidnapping victim, transporting victim to other locations, and penetration. Offense occurred over a 24-hour period. Offender used physical force and a weapon to gain compliance. Offender was unknown to the victim.
It should be noted he was later accused of committing a similar crime, but the accusations apparently didn't stick. Junaid has used the following aliases: Jeffrey Daniels, Gerald Andre Long, Jerry Long.
The house where Junaid maintains his "official" address is in foreclosure. Apparently, 3024 6th Street North will be beyond the period of redemption on July 2, 2008. Yesterday, I observed an individual with a mop bucket giving the house what appeared to be a thorough cleaning, and I assumed it was in preparation for the final evacuation coming up in just a few more days.
I once called Maalik's supervising agent, Mary Ann Mowatt, to express concern about the way a Level 3 sex offender is apparently allowed to use a "front" address and actually spend the majority of his time elsewhere. Mowatt didn't deny this was the situation and, in fact, seemed to verbally confirm it by trying to reassure me Maalik wasn't around my block very much. so why be worried?
It seemed to throw Mowatt for a loop that a citizen with property on the same block as a Level 3 Sex Offender would be concerned about unknown people on some other block, where the sex offender is really spending a lot of his time. Mowatt made some vague and mealy-mouthed promises to look into things. Her main concern appeared to be finding out how I knew poor widdle Maalik's specific address instead of just "3000 Block of North 6th Street."
"Most of the houses on my block are vacant," I said. "It's not hard to figure out. He sure isn't living in my house, he's not living in the house of the nice Hmong family next door...he's not living in the vacant houses. Hey, people on the block know where he lives."
But where will Maalik live after July 2? Well, I'm guessing he will turn up in the area where he has actually been all this time.
You know--speaking once again as a bleeding heart liberal who isn't going to allow himself to bleed to death through a hole in the head--I think if a Level 3 sex offender "uses" other addresses, then those addresses should be a matter of public record, as well.
I shouldn't use myself as an example--being a law abiding, aggressively good citizen--but I need an example, and the facts of my living situation come to mind.
Consider: I still use a small town in rural Minnesota as my permanent address, based on where I receive mail, vote, and have interest in property. Sometimes I spend weeks there, such as last summer when I had visitation with my son. But where am I all the time? In the Twin Cities. At my other address in St. Paul. Also, I own a house in North Minneapolis. Soon I will own a different house in North Minneapolis, if all goes as planned.
So that's, like, four different places where I spend a lot of time, basically other houses I can call "my home." If I were somebody like Maalik, somebody who goes around kidnapping and sexually assaulting, wouldn't people who reside near those locations I call "home" want to know of my habitual comings and goings? Wouldn't they have a right to know?
Yeah, I (expletive) think so!
Hasn't the State of Minnesota learned anything from Dru Sjodin? Dru Sjodin is near and dear to my heart. Check out these this column I wrote. And this one.
Considering the way sex offender addresses in the state of Minnesota are overwhelmingly skewed toward North Minneapolis, this is very much a North Minneapolis issue, especially if some of them are just "using" North Minneapolis.
Getting "used" by sex offenders is the last thing North Minneapolis needs.
2 comments:
Ms. Sjodin was attacked and murdered by a person who live two hours away. There is little evidence to suggest that sex offenders disproportionately attack people in their own neighborhood. The most likley victims are instead people in their circle of friends and family.
Perhaps instead of needlessly depreciating property values and throwing every house wife into a terror, we should just use a branding iron and put an "S.O" on their foreheads. Or some other equally draconian and ineffective penalty.
You don't know anything, including where Crookston is located in relation to Grand Forks, North Dakota. It is certainly not two hours away. Many people who live in Crookston commute to jobs in Grand Forks.
Everybody in the area (including Sjodin and Rodriguez) uses the malls in Grand Forks, though those malls are pretty pathetic by the standards of real cities.
As for your assertion that sex offenders do not "disproportionately" attack people who live in their neighborhood, tell it to that little girl who was killed by a sex offender who lived a few trailer houses away, and buried in a garbage bag. (Jessica Lungsford)
Tell it to that little girl who was killed by being hit with a wooden cutting board and cannibalized by a guy who lived in the same apartment complex. (Jamie Rose Bolin)
There are plenty more examples. But I think I've made my point. You are clueless, including being clueless about the fact nobody needs to brand "S.O." on a sex offender's forehead. Clearly, "S" would be sufficient.
Furthermore, foreheads can be covered by hair, so better to use one cheek.
Even with your dumb hypothetical example, you haven't thought things through. You throw around the words "draconian and ineffective" but, clearly, it would only be draconian, not necessarily ineffective.
As for depressing property values, you clearly don't know anything about my neighborhood. Sex offenders are the least of our worries when it comes to property values. It's the open air drug markets which are killing our property values, not one sex offender who doesn't really live there, anyway.
Post a Comment