ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

National

W.A.R. Calls out Governor Nikki Haley, Nancy Grace, Dr. Drew, Anderson Cooper and Other News Media

Women Against Registry- Recently, this country has gone through months of listening to stories about George Zimmerman and the murder of a slain man and his scorned mistress, Jodi Arias . Where is the news coverage of the brutal stabbing murders of the Parkers? Why aren’t the perpetrators faces who forced their way in to Charles and Gretchen Parker’s home, not all over the air waves of ABC, NBC, MSNBC, HLN and other media networks?

Women Against Registry can tell you why.  The why is because the Parker’s murders were not considered noteworthy of being publicized.  The Parker’s lives do not matter because they were listed on the sex offender registry.  Their lives do not matter to our Supreme Court, our judicial system or to the general public. Charles and Gretchen’s lives do not matter to reporters such as Dr. Drew, Anderson Cooper, and Nancy Grace, if they did, we would be hearing more about the horrific murders of Mr. and Mrs. Parker.

In lieu of the recent murders of Charles and Gretchen Parker, Women Against Registry demands that all citizens be afforded the right to privacy and protection.  W.A.R. demands Governor Haley and the Governors of all states to remove the registries from public view and make them accessible to law enforcement only.

In 1991 Charles Parker was arrested and convicted of sexual misconduct. Nearly twenty two years later, Mr. Parker and his wife were stabbed to death and brutally murdered in their own home.  The Parkers were slain by a man and a woman who went to their home with a story of a broken down vehicle.  The couple entered their way into the home with a preconceived notion and intent to cause harm to Charles and Gretchen due to their address listed on a public registry. The couple admitted to law enforcement they found the Parker’s address and put their plan into motion .

In 2012, less than a year ago in Washington state, Ray Drum tracked and hunted down two registrants who were listed on the publicized sex offender registry. In the wake of the two homicides, Mr. Drum admitted to slaying both men and was on his way to the third victim when he was apprehended by law enforcement.  Mr. Drum premeditated and set out to brutally murder as many victims as possible.  In the wake of his self-proclaimed glory, he left behind an elderly father  of one victim and a wife and two small toddlers or the second. Mr. Drum’s last statement to the court was, “It had to be done!”  Mr. Drum’s printed copy of the public sex offender registry was found on the front seat of his car when apprehended by law enforcement.

In 2005, two men on the Washington state registry were shot and killed by a vigilante who posed as a police officer and was allowed into their homes.  Investigators of that horrific  murder, called it “one of the nation’s most serious cases of vigilantism aimed at sex offenders.”

The public registry has been criticized by scholars who have extensive research and studies to prove that public registration does not protect anyone from harm. Thus, goes on to explain the registry causes more harm to innocent victims than it protects.  Victims like Mr. and Mrs. Parker, family members, wives and dependent children of registrants who face vigilante crimes, public ostracism and harassment on a consistent basis.

W.A.R. calls for the removal of information on registrant families from public access due to it falling into the hands of individuals choosing to use it as a hit list.

Women Against Registry demands that all citizens in the United States be given the same civil and human rights as any other American.

Finally, W.A.R. asks for acknowledgement from South Carolina Governor Haley, Anderson Cooper, Nancy Grace, Dr. Drew, Pierce Morgan and the major media outlets . How many more children and families have to be slain or put through these types of tragedies to be heard?  

Women Against Registry will keep asking WHY until we get an answer.

### 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 
Contact: Vicki Henry, Director
Women Against Registry – https://www.womenagainstregistry.org/
202.630.0345

Join the discussion

  1. JB

    Wow…our movement is growing.

  2. Brubaker

    OUTSTANDING …….they are getting the word out…making people taxpayers more aware registry is further punishment.

  3. Anonymous Nobody

    I want to cheer this. But I can’t. I can’t because they explicitly support SOR, if not open to the public (it would be to a limited degree anyway). Yes, making SOR public is even worse. But the basic idea of people who have completed their sentence, and those who have passed the test of rehabilitation that probation and parole is supposed to be, is flat out wrong. SOR IS probation and parole, it is every bit as much or even more than either, even if kept private and even if limited to no more than simply confirming annually where you are.

    But WAR doesn’t see it that way, they are explicitly supporting the idea of SOR after successful completion of probation and parole and supposed final release to freedom. SOR is NOT freedom, even if it is not publicized. It is no more freedom than parolee, and maybe with some very harsh parole terms with it.

    What WAR here is supporting is what the California Supreme Court once ruled was so cruel and unusual as to be unconstitutional punishment at least for lewd conduct and for some circumstances of indecent exposure and maybe all circumstances of it. Had the court given the same review to other offenses, that might have been expanded to more and more. But the political tide turned.

    The mere existence of SOR after probation or parole is not only harassing, insulting, demeaning, humiliating, oppressive, intrusive, etc., etc., but it also is the legal statement that the legal system is nothing but a complete farce. You can;’t have probation and parole as the legal standard to show one has been rehabilitated to the point they can has compete freedom while you also say they are so dangerous and likely to reoffend that SOR is needed. The Sis the proof of the complete dishonesty and farce. Yet, WAR supports it!

    I appreciate that WAR sees some line that hits them as too much. But they fail to really understand. They show zero understanding of what SOR really does to someone. If its OK to have SOR, then any argument about what it should involve is pointless, as opinions on and attitudes about that will change from day to day, and there can be no one legitimate opinion about that — which is how it has been incrementally expanded with one more thing after another, until we are smothered in horrors that 15 years ago people would have said was not worth discussion, that such things could never happen in America. Well, they are happening, and people’s opinions have changed to think it is fine and dandy and no big deal, and needed. Even WAR seems to accept that at least some degree of SOR is OK, which suggests even WAR thinks there is a legitimate need for it. Mind your, WAR opposed ONLY making names public, said nothing about limiting where people can live, where they can go, and all the other collateral horrors of SOR.

    Regarding my parenthetical comment above that even the private SOR WAR supports would not be completely private, that is one of the points the California high court made when ruling it was unconstitutional for lewd conduct. They pointed out that any time a victim were brought into a police station, they would be shown the book of mug shots of SORs to identify a suspect, and in doing so, saw all the SORs, not simply the one suspect if even in that book. The court thought even that was too much publicizing, too humiliating for SORs because people, even close neighbors, would see and find out they were SORs. WAR supports this. The court thought even having to go in, go to the front desk and announce you are an SOR needing to register was too much, too humiliating, was cruel punishment. WAR thinks this is fine. The court thought having to go through the humiliation of a booking all over again every time you register was cruel. WAR thinks this is fine. And the court ruled this when registration was a LOT easier, much longer time frames in which to do it, had to register in only one place, didn’t even have to go in after being convicted in court because the court would send the information along, you didn’t have to go in until your next update time, etc.

    WAR needs to think this over a lot more. WAR is trying to split hairs by supporting SOR, just want the publicizing of it dropped. WAR is missing the point. The real problem is the entire foundation of SOR.

    • B

      You are absolutely right. However, we cannot deal with absolutes right now. We cannot make the good the enemy of the perfect. I know you don’t believe that there is a credible pathway right now to repeal all registration. There is a credible pathway to creating a tiered system. There is a credible pathway to eliminating housing restrictions and presence restrictions. Maybe we can create a pathway to increasing internet privacy, but I don’t see it right now.

      My point is that we have an ultimate goal of ending registration for all of the reasons you stated. But we have immediate goals of making some progress.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        Even so, you MUST be VERY careful about what you say you support. WAR specifically says it supports requiring SOR. WAR specifically says the only problem is publicizing it. This undermines the fight. You cannot today say it is perfectly fine, we support it except for this one little increment. and after getting that increment (which you won’t when you say SOR is fine), come back and say it is not fine.

        When you go the incremental route, you must be VERY careful about the increments you pick — they must not be willy nilly, they must follow a strategic plan that inevitably leads to the end result desired. This does not, because they are specifically calling for having SOR. They are saying SOR is fine as long as it is open to only law enforcement authorities. They cannot say that. They could instead say they oppose SOR, for now at least stop publicising it, but that is not the gist of what this article says they have said.

        They should be fighting for the increment — and shutting the hell up about stating support for SOR if they get that! They are drastically undermining the fight when they state support for other aspects of SOR.

        And this idea of tiny incrementalism will NOT work with SOR. I understand incrementalism. I have watched it and learned about it for many decades, since I was a little kid and my father taught me about it. And I will say, it is not simplistic. You cannot simply recklessly take any old increment, you need a plan, a strategy, each increment must support that in order to lead to the next — or you absolutely will hit a wall. That will merely get you to the point of oppression forever more rather than outright horrors forevermore — and you will be at that wall.

        For something like SOR, which is rooted in basic fundamental human hate that everyone is born with, you cannot take off little increments at all as easily as you can add them. That doesn’t mean you have to have all or nothing, but you are wearing binders if you think you can do it any old little increment at a time over years, and say nothing about it because it is an increment. You better say something about it, you better make sure a real strategy is followed, you better be very careful about your message even for just a little increment. Incrementalism is not a shallow concept, and you better not look at it shallowly, you better go very deep into it, or you stand little or no chance. Because you will not be able to simply add whatever little increment comes to someone’s mind at any particular time and reach the end goal any more than a general will lead his army to winning a war by running around recklessly and with no plan just shooting at anything that moves and thinking that will lead to wining the war. No, you will get a few increments, and that will be it, the war will be settled, not won. And settlements do not get rid of SOR.

        • Joe

          Anonymous – there was another poster on this site a while ago who kept repeating that any incremental gain was a mistake and that the only acceptable goal was the total repeal of the entire system.

          In principle – could not agree more. However, we live in reality, not in principle.

          Rather than railing against against any and all attempts to make some inroads, please feel free to lay out your plan on how you see your goal accomplished. It does not look like there is a limit to the number of characters in the comments here, and the keyboard seems to be your friend.

          Like I said before – if your plan makes sense, I will be the first in line to support it. Until then – thanks and support for the people who actually make change, any change, happen.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          Yes, but all topics are not the same. And all increments do not have the same direction for an end result. You can defeat yourself by increments very easily if you are not very careful.

          As I said in my first post, I wanted to cheer this increment — but I could not because, from the story, it appeared the increment was being handled in a way that would help assure the end goal in the long run can never be reached, because they are decidedly supporting SOR that is not open to the public, rather than contending it is wrong but at least do this much now.

          And that is the problem. If you aren’t careful, you will finally get the worst things eliminated, and there will not longer be the outcry that we now have. Gee, we have people in this thread saying they are perfectly happy to do SOR as long as it is not made public, and even volunteered to do it a lot more often! If you handle increments wrong, that is what you will get, people saying it is not so bad now, leave it be, and you will never move far enough along to the end goal.

          I have never said all or nothing. I have said to give deeper thought to the strategy and the points-increments you go after. If you don’t, you will end up with some increment that completely undermines the fight, a regular trojan horse. Increments can be a double-edged sword.

          For instance, I have said similar about the tiers. When doing that, this is a one-time, only chance to use the cover of going to tiers are outlined by the federal government (that is where this talk of tiers is coming from, its not some bright California idea in a vacuum!) to actually move all the way to federal standards, eliminating all the add ons from California. Talk of it as a big package, because when arguing the details, SORs stand no chance at all.

          But this has not been considered, instead they want to argue about how bad an SOR really is or isn’t and whether they should ever get off it, rather than argue for a more general and oblique conformance, argue to make it simple to enforce, make it coordinated with all across the country, make it so anyone moving here already knows what to do because it is federal standard, etc., etc.

          (The federal standards are the least the state can do. So, once we conformed the state to federal, the fight could move to the federal level. That is, the end goal at the state level is to conform to federal.)

          That argument could prevail and give a lot of cover for the reduction it would provide, since the feds don’t even require SOR for many of the offenses for which California requires it, nor does it require many of the other add ons that California has. To instead do it wrong now with the idea you will come back later and with no cover at all ask for that reduction — that’s just is not smart strategy! The best chance to go to federal standards is when you do it the first time.

          Besides, SOR is NOT like nearly every other topic. It is unquestionably the third rail of politics. You have to realize that — there are not going to be one increment after another after another. If you get the politicians to touch this once, you have to realize they are NOT going to come back and touch it again. This is your one shot, and you better not miss it. This is NOT the same as other political issues, and it cannot be handled the same.

  4. Steve

    Anonymous At this point I would be happy as hell to be off the Internet and on a list only for law enforcement to see It’s like you want to win the the mega jackpot but could careless about winning $10 Dude, baby steps.

    • C

      Indeed. Take down that Megan’s Law web site and any other public registry and I’ll go down to LAPD HQ and register once a week with if it means getting my life back.

  5. regulusseradly

    You are not a vigilante if you are taking action against someone who has paid for their crimes. You are a bandit, or even a terrorist.

    Nancy Grace is one of the most revolting people in contemporary news media, and should be banned from it. Her coverage of crime stories goes far beyond simple reporting: she tries to influence every case she comments on, and not out of a sense of justice but merely to feed her ego.

    “Piers Morgan” (Piers Stefan O’Meara), by contrast, is a career hypocrite lacking the ability to even pretend concern for justice. First justice was the cup of water and three punches he got from Jeremy Clarkson… but this guy has been hiding in the US for years due to his association with tabloid criminality in the UK.

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 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.  
 

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

.