NE: Study – Sex offender registry might not increase public safety

Admin

The way Nebraska tracks sex offenders might not be protecting public safety as well as the system lawmakers abandoned in 2009, according to a study commissioned by the state Legislature.

Under the old system, only the names of sex offenders deemed by the Nebraska State Patrol as most likely to re-offend were publicized. Those who had committed minor offenses and were considered at low risk of re-offending — known as Level 1 offenders — were required to register with law enforcement agencies, but their information wasn’t made public. Full Article

Related Article with Full Report: http://www.omaha.com/article/20130812/NEWS/130819754/1685

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Might not? How about Does Not! My favorite line in the article…”It appears that the Adam Walsh Act was founded more on public emotion than good science, which is its fundamental shortcoming,” That is true for pretty much ALL registration laws…it’s time to change them all!

0
Reply

If they come up with a national registry of every known citizen in the country and ally nations that allow travel to the United States and force everyone to take a mandatory lie detector test and a barrage of psychological tests and rate them on chances of offending and publishing the whole list online, that might do a better job than this current registry…. O_o

0
Reply

I moved to Nebraska a few months ago, and i am now classified as a lifetime offender for the simple reason the state i moved from requires lifetime for all registrants.

My conviction and case type falls into low risk in Nebraska, but the “lifetime” mark in the other state carries over because of AWA.

I just got my letter yesterday. I WAS a lowest risk, with 4 1/2 years of “treatment” program, and about 14 years since the conviction. Yet, despite this, because of AWA, i am having one hell of a time finding work for the rest of my life.

If we went back to the old system, i stand the chance of finally letting the past be the past and getting on with my life as a working-class citizen. But under AWA, that’s just not going to happen, and i will continue begging for money from the government because i am unable to find work.

0
Reply
View Replies (2)