Registered sex offender Gregert Johnson has reportedly been visiting the Brown Memorial Library in Bradford multiple times a week for years in violation of his sex offender registration requirements. He sat near the children’s section searching the internet for hours. He had his back to the children, but they could easily see his computer screen (only feet away). It’s been going on for years despite the librarian indicating that she was aware of the offender’s criminal history.
Gregert Johnson is a registered sex offender with no probation or parole supervision requirements at this time. He was convicted of possession of child abuse images, which was adjudicated in 2016. His yearly sex offender registration is his only requirement now. He is reminded and questioned at each registration about the registry expectations. He clearly didn’t mention his regular library visits to use the internet and interact with children. He would have been told it was a violation and to find another way to read/research without spending all day at the library around children.
Offender Gregert Johnson befriended the local librarian, the person ultimately responsible for deleting his search history, if he fails to. The librarian may have been fooled by his friendliness, but now she may be complicit in his crimes/violations. Could he have manipulated her into failing to follow the normal library protocols to hide his behavior? Might she have seen some of his criminal activity over the years?
What would lead a librarian to become complicit in ANY sex offender’s crime? The American Library Association has such a strong narrative regarding reading/library access that they have blindly led librarians to protect offenders and even become complicit in their crimes. Children are already being linked to sex seeking adults through “award-winning” children’s library books (see a clear example here).
And now we are seeing librarians protecting open internet access to registered sex offenders, giving them the opportunity to offend using the library’s public devices. Library and reading access is so important to librarians and the ALA that they are willing to overlook children’s safety and the law. The prevention of reading is not supported by the ALA in any manner. They support reading over ALL things, even the right to search porn or sexualize kids. The narrative is powerful enough to blind librarians into putting children at risk and assisting offenders in their crimes. The ALA holds some responsibility here. They teach the narrative.
How was this offender able to commit sex offender registration violations for so many years? Communication between sex offender registry officials/probation/parole officers and the local police have broken down. The expectations for registered offenders (and sex offenders on bail) are not being properly shared. Local police are guessing at what’s expected. Registration documents and bail conditions are often just a series of checkboxes and not very clear to local officers. If the offender’s supervising officer is not communicating with the offender’s local officers, violations are more likely to occur. Gregert Johnson is now on the radar of the sex offender registry and will no longer be visiting the library in Bradford. He may receive new charges for registration violations. Will the librarian be investigated as well? Possibly.
Another recent example of misunderstood sex offender conditions is described here. The Sutton Police ignorantly witnessed convicted sex offender, Marc Jacques, violating his bail conditions by openly using his cell phone at girl’s high school soccer games. The police claimed they were confused about the details of his conditions. Being unsure of an offender’s conditions is the pattern. Officers often don’t know and don’t check. The offenders are quick to take advantage of this confusion and use it to manipulate officials. Those fooled become complicit in the violations. The supervising officer often finds out about the violations well after they have happened. Years of violations may have occurred before anyone realizes something isn’t right or says anything.
Communication regarding a sex offender’s conditions are vital. If a local officer doesn’t know or understand, they need to check. They should never guess. It IS admittedly confusing if you see the registration paperwork. Improved condition expectations are obviously also needed. Common sense seems to have been manipulated out of these two situations, despite the current safeguards. The offenders used their skills to get into opportunistic offending situations and kept it up for years before being noticed or called out.
These offenders are now under more appropriate supervision. Communication was the key. What other sex offender registration violations are occurring around our state? Will communications improve after these hard lessons? Let’s hope so.
Authors’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.
Agree? Disagree? Submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com – We want to hear from you, too!
