ACSOL's Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online - All Call Posts
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459, Time: 5 pm PT Jan 25 - Parole / Probation

Monthly Meetings Q1 2017

Jan 28 in Sacramento, Feb 11 in San Diego, Mar 18 (date change) in Los Angeles [details]

Lobbying in Sacramento

January 30/31 in Sacramento [details]

National

MI: New sex offender rules stalled

Passage seems increasingly unlikely for a bill that would limit the places registered sex offenders can work and was inspired by the discovery that sex offenders worked at a Lansing nonprofit that serves victims of sexual assault. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. abolishtheregistry.com

    I know celebrating this would technically be premature but it did bring a smile to my face because of the previous Michigan slap down.

    I just hope the retroactive bit stands.

  2. David M

    This legislature trying to pass this law is a anarcist. He wants to restrict jobs to ex offenders trying to rehabilitate and reintragate back into society. Mind you the 6th circuit doesn’t like banishment laws but he wants to banish rehabilitated offenders thirty two years later. The one guy that didn’t do anything wrong was convicted in 1984 and now volunteers giving back to the community and not a shread of evidence of any wrong doing should be restricted from working with or around kids. How many jobs have zero kids present? Seriously isn’t this nutter just saying he’s for destabilizing a rehabilitated guy and his family?

    What a waste of tax payers money trying to push this can’t work legislation. Hundreds of untested rape kits, bad water still in Flint. Detroit schools near bankruptcy but he has time for this? Lol

  3. Joe

    Does anyone know what the Michigan laws were prior to the first round of amendments in 2006?

    • Bobby

      Hi Joe,

      I’m not sure if this answers your question,but this was on Michigan’s ACLU website http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/DoesvsSnyder_FAQ%20and%20Fact%20Sheet%202016.pdf

      I was convicted on 6-19-92, way before Michigan even had a registry, so i am hoping was the courts back a final ruling on doe v Snyder, I will be removed all together, since my constitutional rights were obviously violated. Ps let me know ig the link helped you at all,and answered your question. Happy New Year to you.

      • Joe

        Thanks, Bobby. So was everyone on the 25 year plan before 2006/2011? Is that 25years after conviction or after sanctions terminate? I I thought that I saw some reference to “10years after release from prison’ somewhere in one article.
        It sure sounds like Michigan went WAY beyond the normal AWA classifications for Tier 3 if they are putting “Romeo and Juliet” registrants on for life as a Tier 3. The ACLU may have picked the perfect plaintiffs in those cases.
        To my mind, it sounds like a lot more people have a chance at getting off of the Ohio registry because of how they reclassified people,particualrly out of state registrants. I wonder which of the states in the 6th if any, will have to change their laws? Kentucky already had some of theirs draconian laws struck down and the only thing that Tennessee does that is really questionable is to say that out of staters have to be on the Tennessee registry for 5 years before they can invoke the 10 year rule and that includes the residency restrictions. I am not sure when Tennessee passed their 1000 foot rule or their internet identifier rules.

        • abolishtheregistry.com

          I wonder how many people have their charged changed to fit under a new states registry. I know it doesn’t seem like a big deal maybe but it irks me that my attempted L&L was changed to just L&L. It’s not what I was given so how do they do things like that legally.

  4. William Bush

    The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the emergency stay request of Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette. The 2006 and 2011 amendments to the Michigan Sex Offender Act can no longer be enforced. The State of Michigan’s will be heard on it’s appeal, but must comply with the lower courts rulings for now.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderation decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum. Feel free to leave your contact info here.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *