AG charges 8 sex offenders with failing to register
State Attorney General Doug Chin has charged eight sex offenders for failing to register during the last three months.
According to the Attorney General’s office, they are:
» Randy Maunakea who was charged on May 5 with four counts of failure to comply with offender registration requirements. A $10,000 bench warrant has been issued.
» Mose Tauaefa was charged on May 6 with two counts of failure to comply with offender registration requirements. He was convicted of seven counts of third-degree sexual assault on Oct. 6, 2000. A$10,000 bench warrant has been issued.
» Thomas Carreira was charged on May 13 with two counts of failure to comply. He was convicted of third-degree sexual assault in 1994. He also has convictions for abuse, burglary, and theft, and 10 arrests for contempt of court. Carreira is back in jail for violating his supervised release and is awaiting sentencing.
» Justin Jumawan was charged on May 23 with two counts of failure to comply. He was convicted of second- and third-degree sexual assault on Oct. 31, 2007, and is on probation. He moved from his registered address on Feb. 19 without notifying the Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center within three days of the change. A $20,000 bench warrant has been issued, and his whereabouts are unknown.
Also charged were Steven Young, Justin Gonda, Damon Hookano and Dean Barbadillo.
According to the Attorney General’s office, a conviction for failure to comply is a class C felony with a maximum sentence of up to 5 years in prison.
3 responses to “AG charges 8 sex offenders with failing to register”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Is a Class C felony non-violent crime? If yes they may be eligible for quick release under the mandate order my the POTUS. So if that is the case these same individuals will revert to their true self with never ending arrest release cycle, revolving door syndrome
Why do we not have a registry for other criminals? I would like to see where convicted burglars and thieves live. Victims of property crime seem to be demeaned by the fact that their perpetrators are not shamed like those of other crimes. When one becomes a victim of a burglar one loses that sense of safety in one’s own home. These offenders should be publicly shamed much like the sex offenders. It belittles other types of victims when only one type of crime is considered for registry. What about the elderly like the one that suffocated while in her own place of business? Does this victim’s experience warrant the protection of others like her through a registry? When a person is physically assaulted during a home invasion is his or her experience important enough that these type of offenders should be placed on a registry also? What about convicted murderers that have been let out? Shouldn’t the public know where such an offender lives? What about identity thieves? The victim of these type of offenders warrant some kind of protection also. As a matter of fact, shouldn’t the public know where these identity thieves live? These registries go as far as showing their employment address. Wouldn’t you want to know if a convicted identity thief is working in one of the businesses that you frequent? Wouldn’t that be important to you? Questions like these make me wonder about the whole motive of this registry. Yes, we need to punish criminals. But we also need to be equitable. Why stop at just sex offenders? What about the identity thieves? It seems that such a registry for them would help to curtail their ways. Identity thieves work more in the cloak of anonymity than any other offender. And they have a tendency to repeat their offense. By placing them on the registry we can know who they are and where they work so that we may take extra precaution. If we really believe that the registry prevents crime, then why have we not utilized it for other crimes? Or is a certain crime so politically or emotionally charged that we forget that there are other victims of other crimes?
I for one would not be against a publicly accessible registry listing and imaging convicted murderers, illicit drug users, burglars and thieves of any sort, DUI offenders, graffiti “artists” and vandals of any sort, as well as child and spouse abusers, and just about anyone convicted of a crime of violence. After all, wouldn’t most people want to know if the person living next door or across the street has a predilection for thievery, picking fights, damaging other people’s property, or is a meth, heroin, cocaine or non-medical pot user? The stipulation has to be that the person must be convicted of a crime, not necessarily limited to felonies.
Look at it this way: if Hawaii legislators can contemplate putting innocent Hawaii gun owners on a (albeit private) federal database, why the heck not? Just don’t be surprised that if such a sweeping public registry by a miracle happens, you don’t see quite a few Hawaii lawmaker’s listed there among the Joe Blows from Kokomo.