Fresno State ASI: Sex offender resolution rejected

Admin

Fresno State’s Associated Students, Inc. senate rejected a resolution Wednesday that aimed to promote the disclosure of the identities of registered sex offenders on campus.

“I just do not see the necessity of this resolution as it pertains to the college campus,” said Daniel Ward, senator-at-large for academic affairs. “We do not have the authority to change a law. The intention is in the right place. But the fact of the matter is, we’re not going to be able to do any legal processing of this. It is not our place for it.”

Since the passage of California’s Megan’s Law in 2004, the public has been able to view information on sex offenders required to register with local law enforcement.  The law allows a person to use information from the website only to protect a “person at risk.” Full Article

Related:

Student legislation demands admin at public university identify sex offenders on campus

Endorsement Letter from Madera County Sheriff

Related posts

Subscribe
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.  
 

2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

From the article:

“If a criminal is required to register as a sex offender, they’re required to register because there’s a need-to-know basis,” he said. “There’s a need for closer monitoring of these kinds of people, especially considering the rate of re-offense.”

We sex offenders know that there could be nothing more false and further from the truth than the statement above. There may be a need to monitor a person who is actively on probation (but the mere fact that they are on probation means they are already being monitored).

The term used “these kinds of people” is useless as the only thing sex offenders have in common is that they are labeled “sex offenders” by the legal system and nothing else.

The range of crimes can range from a sexual assault to simply being seen urinating in public. Quite a range if you ask me or anyone else with any common sense at all!

So let’s see…we lump all those varied and diverse people together and just label them all “sex offenders” and treat the person who raped someone the same a the guy who needed to take a piss. Sure that will make everyone sleep better at night.

Again, the article points out the lack of critical thinking being used by way too many.

0
Reply

“…especially considering the rate of re-offense.”

Which is only 1.9% according to CDCR.

0
Reply