ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings [details]
9/15 – Berkeley, 10/13 – W. Sacramento (date change), 10/20 – Los Angeles

Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles): 8/24, 9/22, 10/27, 11/24, 12/22 [details]

Conference Videos Online7/14 Meeting Audio

National

MA: Sex offender registry changes sought

The lowest level of convicted sex offenders would be required to register with local police and face increased scrutiny under plans to expand the state’s registry.

A proposal by Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr would require Level 1 sex offenders to register with police in person, while their names, addresses and other information would be added to a searchable online database, along with those of more serious Level 2 and 3 offenders. Full Article

 

Join the discussion

  1. LostandDevastated

    This can’t happen this can’t happen….my life will be over even more than it is now If this happens

    • ma.concerned.citizen

      If it DOES happen to pass, let’s hope the same lawsuit comes about as the last time they did this to level 2 citizens, which by the way was introduced because of the same single incident.

      At that time, it was Level 2 citizens they were targeting, which I happen to be one. The law passed, and so level 2 citizens have their information public just like level 3s. However, a lawsuit was quickly filed to allow current level 2 citizens to be grandfathered in so that they would not be made public, only citizens who offended after the date the law was passed. It won, and so I’m protected still from my information being made publicly available.

      Fingers crossed that this bill is just defeated outright.

    • Facts should matter

      Prepare to lose what little sanity you have left…

  2. NYLevel1

    always scumbag Republicans at dirty work so when they’re on the hustings they can fool the voters

    I don’t get it we have to be at least 100 people here who can bombard them with calls and emails etc

    and I mean bombard

  3. ron

    So the state looses track of registered sex offenders and what is their answer? Let’s have more people register. The states incompetence is on surpassed buy its own ineptitude.

  4. The Static-99R Is A Scam

    How can sudden publication not be Ex Post Facto punishment–which is prohibited by the Constitution? Smith v. Doe is a disaster. If a person is not currently published, then one should not face sudden publication after an enactment of a law. I know that at least here in California, I know that there are many who are not listed on the Megan’s Law website but will suddenly appear when the Tiered Registry comes online in about three years. This is ridiculous.

    • ma.concerned.citizen

      That’s what the lawsuit I mentioned above covered. No one who was currently level 2 ended up with their information public. It was considered ex post facto. Moving forward, anyone who was finally set as a level 2 did, and does, have their information public.

      If this does pass, I would almost guarantee that a similar law suit would immediately be filed.

      • LostandDevastated

        I asked my lawyer and this is the response I got

        I don’t think a law that requires public disclosure for level 1s would pass constitutional muster in Massachusetts. The case law is pretty clear on that. They have in the past talked about putting Level 1 offenders on the website but it has not gone anywhere.
        So I would not worry too much about that at this point.

    • CR

      This is exactly what happened across the US (most states) when retroactive registry laws began to be passed. Tens of thousands of people who had already completed their sentences or who were convicted before such laws existed were suddenly forced to register. And in many (most?) cases, their information was suddenly made public.

      Smith v Doe said it wasn’t ex post facto punishment, go figure.

      At least now we are seeing a very small number of courts rule that it is, in fact, punishment. Let’s hope that trend continues.

  5. AlexO

    The articles reasoning for this because they “lost track” of some offenders is weird if true. How’s making tier 1 public going to help them track anyone? Whether they were tier 1 and could register by mail or tier 2/3 and doing it in person, they all had to still do it under penalty of incarceration. You’re now going to spend a lot more time and money and hurt people doing something that will in no way resolve the underlying issue. I really hope this isn’t their only reason for doing this because it makes zero sense.

  6. Joe

    I am kind of confused about this whole “losing track” thing…. would that not imply that all these people have had, during their “lost” time, zero contact with law enforcement? Not even a parking ticket?

    How is that a bad thing?

  7. Counting the days

    Another email sent to him explaining the ridiculiousness of his proposal.

  8. Joe123

    https://malegislature.gov/Legislators/Profile/BET0

    I plan to call and email this worthless bastard everyday until he gets it through his empty skull that what he is doing is a Disgrace and Waste of taxpayer dollars, because his stupid idea has NO backing of any kind in science. What a damn moron. I encourage everyone to do the same if you care about where this country is headed, because it is headed right to Hell with psychos like this in politics.

  9. Joe123

    This is what I just sent over to him and the senatehouse reporter. Of course it’s not politically correct, but I am beyond angry at this. At a certain point you just ‘snap’ and can’t take this asinine Bullsh*t anymore. I tried to calm myself down as best as I could before emailing them:

    Subject: LIVID – Sex offender registry changes sought article

    Good Day,

    As a LAW-ABIDING, MASSACHUSETTS TAX PAYER, I am BEYOND livid about what what I had just read in this below article about what Bruce Tarr wants to do. Never in my wildest dreams did I believe that MASSACHUSETTS, a PROGRESSIVE STATE, would fall into the Dark Ages:

    http://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/sex-offender-registry-changes-sought/article_e5b740d4-0090-5746-8bbe-34d5ffa7facd.html

    So you have decided to target LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, who PAID THEIR DUES to society, who happen to have what the state would consider a “SEX OFFENSE”, who have the LOWEST recidivism rate of ANY crimes, as a group. Let’s start with that proven (over and over again) fact. Mind you, this includes people that looked at IMAGES that they shouldn’t have and never harmed another human being, these are not all MONSTERS that rape little children and elderly people.

    You want to WASTE police resources and destroy families by listing the lowest NON-VIOLENT NON-CONTACT offenders on the public registry so that they can be harassed further and their lives made worse AFTER THEY ALREADY SERVED THEIR TIME in probation or incarceration?

    Do you have ANY idea how many people are KILLED that are on the registry due to crimes against these people by idiots that don’t understand that not everyone on the registry is a threat? Do you want me to send you the vast amount of deaths that occur? What about the families and children left behind of a father or son that was killed because a deranged vigilante found their info on the Public Registry? So you want to ENCOURAGE murder, violence, unemployment and DESTROY families? Because that is 100% EXACTLY what your ridiculous, MERIT-LESS, law will indirectly do.

    Are you aware of how many violent people that can hurt someone at anytime are Walking Around on the streets now, who haven’t been caught, who are not on any registry?

    9 OUT OF 10 PEOPLE on the REGISTRY do not have a re-conviction. What about this valid and well-known statistic is confusing?

    Why aren’t you going after people that are VIOLENT and who have MENTAL PROBLEMS that enable them to cause real, intentional harm to people?

    People are DYING from OPIOD addictions, Reckless Pharmaceutical Drugs, Harmful Chemical Additives in Food, Alcohol, SCHOOL VIOLENCE/Shootings, ROBBERIES. Families are being DESTROYED. But here you are, instead of tackling problems that cause REAL HARM, you decide to go after a non-existent problem of society and public safety, going after the NON-VIOLENT/NON-CONTACT OFFENDERS. UNBELIEVABLE.

    You want to RUIN thousands of people’s lives that are LAW-ABIDING, because it will make you FEEL GOOD at night? Or because “One Bad Person Slipped Through the Cracks So We Should Punish Thousands of People and Their Families”?

    Do you even check Statistics, Empirical Evidence, maybe Facts? Why don’t you pass a MUCH needed law that requires Politicians to actually STUDY the facts and head BOTH SIDES before being given the power to change laws?? Common sense, you would think, right?

    So for example, if I had looked at a few inappropriate pictures and was charged for this ‘heinous crime’ and served my time, I am somehow considered a dangerous person, is that how you think?

    If I have NEVER violently or sexually forced myself onto someone, under YOUR LAW, I am labeled a Dangerous Person now? Do you recognize the INSANITY of your thinking? If I am a PROPONENT of defending women, children and animals, yet I have a ‘sex offense’ for looking at inappropriate images out of stupid curiosity years ago, I am somehow considered a Dangerous Monster by your standards?

    Please, do not use the excuse that judges have any discretion in the matter. THEY DO NOT. They require ALL PEOPLE to register on the Sex Offender Registry from ‘crimes’ such as looking at pictures, to having Consensual Sex with their younger girlfriends, there is NO WAY AROUND IT. There is no DISCRETION used, it is against the law to use any discretion. Are you even aware of the existing laws at all?

    So “Massachusetts lost track of many offenders exact current addresses”, correct? Where are all the RAPES and Killings that happened due to this? Where is the statistic that would BACK-UP your legislation and give it any merit? Where are all of the HURT FAMILIES because of this? Show me the dozens of violent incidents and sexual rapes that have happened due to LEVEL 1 offenders not being all being on the Public Registry? You have one example? What about the thousands of people that have NOT caused any harm?

    SEX OFFENDERS have the LOWEST RECIDIVISM RATES, that is why Nobody Was In Danger to begin with.

    Stop wasting OUR MONEY and chasing a MERIT-LESS law that is not backed up by any empirical evidence.

    Once you can go on the record with PROOF that destroying the privacy of thousands of people will make society better, then you can waste MY MONEY on passing ridiculous laws like this.

    Until then, sir, please focus on passing NEEDED legislation that families actually need in this country, and not these KNEE-JERK feel-good laws that are going to destroy peoples lives and waste Law Enforcement’s resources. Do NOT make OUR STATE look bad, which is what you are doing.

    This is disgraceful. Massachusetts gave the UNITED STATES hope that asinine laws wouldn’t be passed like they are passed in backwards-states. However, it seems Bruce Tarr just made an example of Massachusetts moving BACKWARDS in time instead of forward. It may have been a “Well Intention-ed” thought, but good intentions have started Wars in our world’s history.

    My apologies if this email is brass, but I believe the EMOTIONAL IMPACT of your poorly-thought-out decisions need to really be felt by you.

    If you still have ANY doubts that what you are doing is WRONG, please note that LAWSUITS will be filed. I 100% promise you that. That will show further that you are making bad decisions for this State.

    Thank you for your time and I strongly recommend you to do some actual research before passing merit-less laws that will incur costly Lawsuits to the state.

    Please see appendage of Research for your Reading below:

    Best Regards,
    ***************
    CEO & Business Owner
    ___________________________________________________________

    According to the NCMEC map there are over 859,500 men, women and children (as young as 6, 8 and 10 in some states) required to register and the “crimes” range from urinating in public (indecent exposure), sexting, incest, mooning, exposure, false accusations by a soon-to-be ex-wife, angry girlfriend, or spiteful student, viewing abusive OR suggestive images of anyone 18 years old or younger, playing doctor, prostitution, solicitation, Romeo and Juliet consensual sexual dating relationships, rape, endangering the welfare of a child, the old bate-n-switch internet stings (taking sometimes 12 months before a person steps over the line) young guys on the autism spectrum or with intellectual disabilities and many others.

    If you multiply the number on the registry by 2 or 3 family members you can clearly see there are well over 2 million wives, children, moms, aunts, girlfriends, grandmothers and other family members who experience the collateral damage of being murdered, harassed, threatened, children beaten, have signs placed in their yards, homes set on fire, vehicles damaged, asked to leave their churches and other organizations, children passed over for educational opportunities, have flyers distributed around their neighborhood, wives lose their jobs when someone learns they are married to a registrant….all these things occur when these people try to hold their family together and provide the three things that professionals state are needed for successful re-integration; a job, a place to live and a good support system. Residency restrictions, ranging from 500 ft to 2,500 ft are ludicrous and not supported by the Association for Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA).

    A study reviewing sex crimes as reported to police revealed that:
    a) 93% of child sexual abuse victims knew their abuser;
    b) 34.2% were family members;
    c) 58.7% were acquaintances;
    d) Only 7% of the perpetrators of child victims were strangers;
    e) 40% of sexual assaults take place in the victims own home;
    f) 20% take place in the home of a friend, neighbor or relative (Jill Levenson, PhD, Lynn University)

    The public needs to decide if they want to continue to focus on those who, for the most part, are one time offenders or if they see a greater need to fund programs like “Stop It Now” that teaches about grooming behaviors and other things in their Circles of Safety.

    Women Against Registry ~ Fighting the Destruction of Families

    To whom it may concern…

    I am emailing or posting this in hopes that it will be passed around so that I might bring to light facts and concerns surrounding a serious issue. There is an epidemic of bad policy coming from the government that is causing great harm to millions of people in this country and needs to be made public and which must be addressed.

    The fact is none of these failed policies have achieved any positive results. These laws only affect those individuals who want to be law abiding citizens and have no effect on the monsters people claim they are all concerned about…Zero effect…

    I do agree with those of you that feel that people who attack and rape children or adults should be locked up for an appropriate amount of time and subjected to intensive treatment before ever having a chance to be released,(which they are already, and the worst of the worst usually never get out), and if they re-offend lock them up and throw away the key…But do you really want our limited law enforcement resources wasted on low level offenders or would you rather have that money put into monitoring the high risk offenders and into programs that actually help prevent sexual abuse before it happens?

    These laws are absolutely useless, are a waste of tax payer dollars, and are a misplaced use of valuable law enforcement and governmental agency resources.

    Please take the time to research all the real facts and evidence on this subject and all the collateral damages to individuals and thier family members that are being caused by these laws.

    You don’t have to take my word for it, just watch what the experts say….

    https://youtu.be/GBoy2FB27yg

    Here are some facts from the leading authorities on this subject which indicate that there is no need or justification for these laws.

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)

    Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the lives of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231

    National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America.

    The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.

    The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350

    The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483

    Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of non-effectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483

    These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

    People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following.

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB)

    Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30)

    The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf

    Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.

    The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%

    Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf

    CA 00.8% The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) “2014 Outcome Evaluation Report“ http://californiarsol.org/2015/08/new-cdcr-report-reduces-rate-of-re-offense-to-less-than-1-percent.

    CA figure 11 01.9% California sex offender management Board 2012 in looking at this one I realize that this is another attempt to increase the visual concept of a higher reoffend rate than actually exists you will note in table 11 , that there are 8490 released sex offenders and that 5870 are returned to prison or 69.1% going onto figure 11. The pie chart does not represent the 8490 but rather represents the 5870. When you take this into account and do the math. 1.9% of 5870 comes out to 111 and 111 people involved in the new sex crime, out of 8490 comes out to an actual reoffend rate of 1.3%. This is just another way that the government is using razzle-dazzle techniques. In doing their statistical analysis.
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    More state studies;

    CT page 9 01,7% And prisoners with no prior sex crime are six times more likely to be involved in a new sex crime Recidivism among sex offenders in Connecticut, State of Connecticut
    Office of Policy and Management, Criminal Justice Policy & Planning Division, February 15, 2012

    DE Table 26 03.1% REARREST 6 offenders and on table 27 3 Offenders were not found guilty of a crime that makes the percentage of people convicted of a new sex crime. 01.5%. Rearrests should never be used as a determining factor. Delaware Sex Offenders, Profiles and Criminal Justice System Outcomes, January 2008
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8622&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    IA page 7 #4 “With the overall recidivism for sex offenses as low as 2% “ Iowa Sex Offender Research Council Report to the Iowa General Assembly January 22, 2009
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8618&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    IA ARREST 02.3% page 7 Iowa Department of Corrections Report to the Board of Corrections
    Third in a series of reports highlighting issues contributing to corrections population growth April 2006 Sex Offenders
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8616&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    IN bottom of page “1.05%of identified sex offender’s recidivated for a new sex crime within 3 years.” Indiana Department of Correction Recidivism Rates Decrease for 3rd Consecutive Year
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8935&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    IA table 4 0.3% new sex crime THE IOWA SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY AND
    RECIDIVISM Iowa Department of Human Rights Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning and Statistical Analysis Center
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8617&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    MI 8/10 of 1% three-year study has come out of Michigan looking at the number of people on parole that were returned to prison for new crimes they found that of the sex offenders who were released from prison and found that they were involved in the new sexually related crime at 8/10 of 1%, or in other words, that 99.2% DID NOT Reoffend in the new sex crime. And that they had the lowest reoffend rate of all the criminal classes released.

    The full report is here http://nationalrsol.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPPS.pdf.

    Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7%

    Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf

    Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.

    The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%

    Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf

    Once again, these are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

    Then we have those that are attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry which is another myth and misrepresentation of the facts. This type of misinformation that is based on hearsay and not on facts or evidence is also being used in order to create harsher penalties or further punishments.

    These laws only effect people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. Once again I want to emphasize that these laws only effect innocent family members and those individuals who most just want a second chance to become a respectable, productive and law abiding citizen and have absolutely zero effect on anyone who’s interested and intent on committing a crime.

    No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so.

    Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one study showing examples of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA, which many states refused to do. This list doesn’t include the cost to maintain the entire registration processes for the plethora of official state and federal agencies that is a product of these laws.

    From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M.

    For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work.

    http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf.

    None of these failed policies have not achieved any positive results in the US and are in fact destroying the lives of thousands upon thousands of innocent children and their families because one of their parents or family members are on such a registry.

    There has not been a single incidence in which a person was apprehended or prevented from committing a crime anywhere or anytime in this country because of any of these laws.

    Please take the time to research all the real facts and evidence on this subject and all the collateral damages to individuals and thier family members that are being caused by these laws.

    Thank you for your time.

  10. Counting the days

    I heard back from his communication director. He was polite in his response and appluaded me for my passion about the subject.
    He informed me that the article was incorrect in that no level 1 changes were being considered. He also informed me that action had been taken to correct the article and put out the correct information.
    He said that these types of articles paint politicians and offenders alike as bad people and encouraged me to check with sources before taking the articles as truth.
    I for one am appreciative of his response and hope his words ring true. I will keep the response.

    • Joe123

      Yes, he replied to me in an informative manner as well:

      Thank you for your message regarding the legislation I have filed to reform parts of our state’s Sex Offender Registry. While I am disappointed in some of its contents, I sincerely appreciate your contacting me with your concerns, and your candor in describing them in the context of your personal situation.

      Given some misunderstanding and miscommunication in the news report that prompted your message, I can certainly understand the strong nature of your criticism of the bill. My office has been working with Mr. Wade to correct and clarify that reporting, and he has been extremely responsive in that effort.

      Therefore, it’s important to understand that the bill as written would NOT require the placement of Level 1 offender information on the internet with open public access. I agree with your position that doing so would be an overreach that would compromise the balance between public safety and the availability of information. The bill would, however, allow a person making inquiry at a police station with specific identifying information to be provided with an individual’s registration status.

      This legislation did not come about arbitrarily, nor in a vacuum. Rather, it was informed by the work of State Auditor Suzanne Bump and in consultation with those responsible for public safety in our state government. The goal of the bill is to allow the information collected by the Sex Offender Registry to be used for its intended purpose, and not to facilitate its abuse.

      In addition, the bill will not be considered in a vacuum if it advances. The legislative process includes research and vetting by at least one committee and a resulting report, and a public hearing which includes receiving written testimony from those who cannot attend. Should you wish to participate in that process, your input would be welcomed. In the event that the bill is reported from the committee process to the floor, it would then be the subject of debate in the Senate chamber. Should the House then choose to take it up, it would similarly be debated in that branch. Finally, if approved by the legislature, it would move to the desk of the governor for his consideration. Throughout this process there is abundant opportunity for analysis and consequential action or inaction.

      Your message clearly indicates that you have deep concerns with the way the registry and our courts deal with sex offenders, and reflects considerable thought on this subject. I value this insight and your perspective. Should you wish to share more of your story, I am willing to listen.

      Thanks again for writing, and please do not hesitate to do so in the future.

      Sincerely,

      Bruce Tarr

      State Senator

      • Joe123

        This was my reply to his email, which I hope gives him something to think about:

        Good Day Bruce,

        Thank you for your informative response that helps clarify the actual facts of the matter. You will have to excuse my tone in the email, but living in a free country under the constant enslavement of the Registry which has not in any way proven that I am “dangerous” whatsoever it’s quite stressful, on a daily basis, and it stresses me everyday and my family. We don’t know what kind of outlandish, far-left laws will be written up tomorrow by our politicians that we entrust. More freedom can be taken away, and such freedom cannot be taken away lightly without a fight. I am sure you can understand this point.

        In my original email, I should have given some credit to the reason that the initial legislature was even being drafted by you. What happened with the child abuse at that preschool/facility is horrible, and I don’t believe any sane person would disagree. What I don’t understand is how someone like this was allowed to work at a facility that primarily handles children.

        Why would someone with a past sex offense be allowed by the license holder/owner to be employed? If the owner had a sex offense, then why would someone with such an offense be allowed to have a License to operate such a facility? This seems like a logical flow to me. This is the First Line of Defense and it failed. It should have never failed. If it didn’t fail, you wouldn’t need to come up with such new legislation.

        I cannot fathom how someone can be allowed to operate a facility that primarily works with these children and they have a sex offense that hasn’t been reviewed by a license board, giving this person a final decision as to whether they can grant the license or not.

        That seems to be a more simpler solution to this one-off situation that happened, rather than expanding the registry.

        If you proceed with your current plan, you need to ensure that only members of the public that have a specific ‘Need to Know about a specific person have a right to access, should this new law actually pass, which I cannot imagine will have any difficulty, since nearly all sex offense laws pass without any scrutiny whatsoever. This cannot be a ‘Free for all’ including the commercial companies that will obtain, then online catalog and release this information for easy access online. That is not OK.

        This law also may not apply retroactively, as I believe there will absolutely be lawsuits that will prevent this from being retroactively applied. A recent court ruling has declared the Registry a form of punishment, so as you can imagine, the law that you’re trying to pass would be part of a punishment, so while it may stand up in court for the time being (while the Registry hasn’t yet been ruled unconstitutional, but we all know that’s a matter of time due to facts showing most offended are not a danger), it will not stand up to the ‘ex post facto’ challenge.

        Overall, I understand that you are a well-intentioned human being, and you are trying to keep the community safe. However, it is wise to tread lightly because you risk hurting thousands of other people and their families.

        If there was a one-off case such as what happened with the child abuse at the facility, any legislature should be targeted to specifically improve current processes, not further expand them at the cost of causing harm to people. This person in question should have never been allowed to work or receive a license to operate a day care. Why did this happen? This should be the focus, not releasing information to the public about people that made 1 mistake and pose no sexual or violent threat to anyone.

        I have read extensively on this subject and welcome any comments or ideas, if you need any feedback. I believe what Massachusetts has, as far as existing registry laws, is more progressive and lenient than other states. I do NOT want to see us going backwards, and hundreds of thousands of people across the US on the Registry, and their entangled families, will agree. However, at the end of the day, the Registry was designed to enhance public safety by registering Dangerous individuals that have Repeat Contact Offenses, not ‘Everybody’, like the current system does today.

        Please remember: Nearly ALL sex offenses happen by someone that is Not already on the registry, and the Offender is almost never a stranger; they are a trusted family friend etc. someone that is well known to the victim.

        What Massachusetts and the US needs is better education for Prevention of sex offenses, not a reactionary ‘legislative’ position. We don’t need politicians being our parents. We as Adults need to take responsibility and be careful who we trust with our children, regardless of any Registry, because most people that commit a first offense are Not on the registry, so the registry does very little for public safety. It actually harms citizens because they are given a False Sense of Security, and that is very dangerous.

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. Moderating 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 refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • 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.
  • 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, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, 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.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
 

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

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