ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (4/17 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021

General NewsNational

WY: Committee defeats banning sex offenders near child care sites

CHEYENNE — A Wyoming legislative committee on Monday defeated a bill that would have banned sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of child care facilities. The House Judiciary Committee voted 7-2 against the bill sponsored by Rep. John Eklund, R-Cheyenne.

“The intention of this bill is to have the same protection for under school aged children that we do for school children,” Eklund said. He said there have been instances were sex offenders have moved in next to established day care facilities. Steve Corsi, director of the Wyoming Department of Family Services, said his agency didn’t see any weaknesses with the bill.

However, Linda Burt, director of the ACLU in Wyoming, said that putting the bill’s proposed restrictions together with existing restrictions on sex offenders living near schools would drastically restrict where offenders could live in many communities. Full Article

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 will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

If only ALL of California would come around and realize what other states/counties, etc. are realizing.

It would be ironic if that Lady posting all the fear mongering in that articles comment section had her son or daughter arrested for sexting. Then she could see their pictures on the site she is advertising. Ignorant people

Actually, HB is proposing a bandaid on an amputation with their approach. The net result of their “reform” is that the police department will be responsible for issuing waivers, which of course they will NOT do because of fear of lawsuits against the Scary Stranger In The Trenchcoat Abduction. (Rolls eyes)…in any case, they are in our sights just as much as if they didn’t do anything until they repeal the damn thing in its entirety.

“Rep. Stephen Watt, R-Rock Springs, spoke against the bill. A former police officer, he has a problem with the state imposing continuing punishment on sex offenders after they’ve served their prison time.”

He may still be a Republican, but he’s on the correct side of this one!

While the good Representative should be commended for his rational approach to the subject, I wonder if there are any studies about how many people are required to register – but who were never sentenced to state prison. How many people committed crimes so ‘heinous’ that their direct sentence, as handed down by the judge who listened to the case, consisted of jail time and / or probation (only)? He is making it sound that everyone on the list has done something deserving of state prison time.

THAT is a study I would be interested in…

Most penalties for these offenses start with “Confinement in State Prison for a term of xxx”, then the probation conditions are listed, unless they are clearly misdemeanors, then the implications are not as serious. This is one of the ways the general public associates the term “State Prison Time” with the term “Serious Offenders” as listed on the web sites. Many people also use the terms prison and jail interchangeably without full knowledge of the differences. In many cases an actual prison sentence means harsher post release conditions. Jail and/or probation is usually granted in felony cases where there are… Read more »

“Most penalties for these offenses start with “Confinement in State Prison for a term of xxx”” – not sure that statement is true just like that. Many punishments do not include that sentence and confinement in State Prison – even felonies.

The question I would have would be what percentage of people convicted of 290 offenses never set foot in a State Prison? I dare say the percentage would be surprisingly high. Given that their crime is the one kind that is completely unforgivable.

Those whose specific information is posted on Megans Law as typically listed as Serious Offenders. Here is part of the statute for Sodomy and as you can see, as it is in many “Serious” crimes, State Prison terms are often listed: * 286. (a) Sodomy is sexual conduct consisting of contact between the penis of one person and the anus of another person. Any sexual penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime of sodomy. (b) (1) Except as provided in Section 288, any person who participates in an act of sodomy with another person who is under 18… Read more »

Any feint at rationalism in re RSO issues comes with tremendous political risk. In this case, we have a legislator with real police experience fronting the main issue: continues criminal control. There is no science, statistic nor legitimate reason for the States to persist in ‘continued criminal control’ over REGISTERED ex-offenders. We are bye-and-large non-criminals, living as much of a law-abiding life as is possible these days, who would no more abuse, assault or molest a child as would we violate our own wives. Progress is good. Anything we accomplish in the effort to combat the monster serves to protect… Read more »

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x