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

N.Y. County Outsources The Job Of Monitoring Sex Offenders

NPR – A suburban county on Long Island, N.Y., is taking a novel approach to monitoring sex offenders: It’s giving the job to a victims’ advocacy group. The measure was approved unanimously earlier this year; lawmakers call it a cost-effective way to keep citizens safe. But a local lawyer calls it a “vigilante exercise,” and convicted sex offenders are organizing to challenge the legislation.

____ ____, 42, a convicted sex offender, is among those who object to the methods of Parents for Megan’s Law, the advocacy group hired by Suffolk County. ____, who was convicted of sexual abuse two decades ago and is now married with two children, says one day last spring he met the people he calls “the trackers.” Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. JB

    Oh geez what could possibly go wrong here? Vengeance has no place in our society and this so called group is not law enforcement. I would encourage all registrants to refuse to register with these brown shirts. Besides, many people, myself included, HAD NO VICTIM!

    • td777

      Yep, I’m in that no victim group. Actually, I see my wife and child as victims, because they have to suffer for all this ridiculousness.

  2. alert

    Oh, legal harassment. How touching it is to have such dedicated citizens living among us.
    Wouldn’t they be better served peeking in windows trying to catch people engaged in illegal sex before the fact?

    • Anonymous Nobody

      How ironic that you suggest that, as a peeping tom conviction could end up requiring them to register.

      • alert

        You’re right, and how well I know.
        There must be some serious brain functions going on with people following relatively harmless individuals simply living their life.
        I hope they’re referred to in the future as “stalkers” instead of “trackers”.

        Pro advocacy groups need to educate themselves first about sex offenders and then to educate the public about effective strategies of protective themselves and their children from being a victim.

        IMHO, they may “get-off” on legal stalking, but they are simply creeps with an attitude.

        December 6, 1969 there was a Rolling Stone concert at Altamont Pass near San Francisco. Another group of knuckleheads with the same mentality as the lawmakers of Long Island, N.Y. decided it would smart to hire the “The Hell’s Angels”.
        History has shown us how that turned out. Now here we go again.
        Hang on buckaroos! It looks like it’s going to be a hell of a ride.

  3. Bee

    I sure hope someone alerts all registrants in this county that they are not required in any way shape or form to interact with this group. I am offering to donate $100 worth of stamps to make this happen. Holla back.

  4. td777

    This is possibly the worst thing I have seen yet as far as monitoring of registrants. How could anyone with a brain think that having a victim advocacy group monitor registrants is a good idea? I guess I just answered my own question…

  5. Brubaker

    The people there forced to register will challenge that
    monitoring …and they will win…..monitoring ..???…oh…like people on parole and maybe gps monitor parole…..but on
    people free from parole..????……challenge that and WIN.

  6. Anonymous Nobody

    This “monitoring,” at least in California, is a term that arouse in a court opinion, and that most all other subsequent SOR court opinions simply picked up mindlessly. There isn’t any actual monitoring mandated by the 290 statutes, except in recent years when some SORs were required to wear GPS devices. But other than those who have to wear GPS devices, all SOR is is to know which registrants are in that community — not to impose actual surveillance on them.

    Some dumb court opinion used the word surveillance, and forever more that is what people say, but the court did not say what it meant by surveillance, and the law says nothing of surveillance. All the “surveillance” is by the statue is to know where they live — the statute otherwise gives no mandate to do what most people would consider to be surveillance, such as doing house checks or otherwise spying on you. It doesn’t stop police form house check and other, but it does not call for them to do it, and it does not require a registrant to cooperate with it. (And as I have pointed out in other threads, there are things you can do to bar even the police from entering for other than an emergency or with probable cause.)

    But I guarantee you, the second you contract a mandate to a vigilante group to do the surveillance, they WILL go over the line, since the line in the law really provides for doing nothing. I guess these vigilantes will “surveil” those wearing GPS devices, rather than the GPS company already being paid for that. But if they are going to start going around and bothering registrants, sue the hell out of them — doesn’t matter if they have a contract to “monitor” you.

    I guess that New York county can’t wait to make the next Trayvon Martin be a registrant.

    • FRegistryTerrorists

      Families that are listed on the harassment Registries need to have their properties enclosed by fencing or walls. For some many reasons. And they should never allow any employees of the criminal regimes, especially law enforcement, onto their properties. They just shouldn’t. Anything less than that is implicit agreement with the BS Registries.

      And of course, Registered families should never allow people from vigilante groups like Parent’s for Megan’s Law onto their properties or speak to them.

  7. FRegistryTerrorists

    Good people: It is great to post on this forum but we should all post on every other public forum available. There is less need to talk among ourselves than there is to run an anti-propaganda campaign against the liars and terrorists who support the Registries. So, please post at the article’s source.

  8. mch

    Not to mention that these self righteous zealots will feel the need to arm themselves for their own protection from the very, very dangerous registrants. Probably going to be bloodshed if this goes through, and the law enforcement agencies in charge of the moral patrol will turn a blind eye to the outcome. We know the mentality of both law enforcement and hyped citizen patrols/monitors/stalkers/peeping toms. Ignorance empowers these knuckleheads.

    • FRegistryTerrorists

      The articles that I have read said that the vigilantes are prohibited from carrying firearms. But the scumbag politicians who set this up likely did it only to protect themselves from lawsuits rather than just having enough sense to do so.

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 *

.