Opinion: Place focus on worst sex offenders

State legislators should review laws regarding our sex offender registry in order to allow law enforcement to focus on the most dangerous.

We have no empathy for those individuals who committed violent sexual acts against any adult or minor.

But the requirements of sex offenders to register keeps local law enforcement officers checking up on some people who pose little risk to the public. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

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


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. 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.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. 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.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. 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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The gist here that minor or lesser offenders should either not be subjected to SOR at all or for much shorter periods is good. But I am very highly offended by the assertion that that should be “no empathy for those individuals who committed violent sexual acts against any adult or minor.” And I see that line of thinking raise its ugly head too often, even in other threads at this Website.

To my mind, empathy should apply to all. This is not saying to be reckless if dealing with someone prone to violence. This is to say that everyone is a human being, and all human beings deserve empathy. And thus, you should never just throw the key away for someone who has committed a violent sex act — or multiple such. No matter how heinous.

This is not saying to be stupid and allow them to be free and roam at will if there really is reason to believe they are not truly reformed, or “cured.” Yes, all that is a tricky thing to determine accurately, but the point is about whether there should be empathy, not whether people will be stupid about it. Yes, empathy has to be balanced with common sense.

These kinds of arguments of the kind that undermine the entire fight over SOR — all you are doing with that is feeding the beast you are trying to fight. If you advocate no empathy for violent offenders, I don’t see how you can ask for any empathy for anyone. Why should anyone have any empathy for any “criminal?” I don’t see how you can advocate against empathy for violent offenders and ask for empathy to relieve someone convicted of misdemeanor indecent exposure from SOR. As “criminal,” they are all bad seeds. You’re trying to split hairs, but the public just doesn’t want any bad seeds around, that’s why they have classified them as criminals in the first place. When you justify lack of empathy for violent offenders, all you do in the public mind, or logically, is justify lack of it for all “criminals.”

You just simply cannot advocate to lessen or eliminate SOR while at the same time advocate lack of empathy for anyone. I have spoken about strategy in other threads, and this is just another example of bad strategy. This feeding of the best is just another example of how maybe one incremental benefit now and the handling of it can thwart the main goal.

(I will note, so readers know I am not speaking to benefit myself: I have never been convicted, accused of or ever done a violent offense or any violent incident.)