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)

General News

Who Really Commits New Sex Crimes?

In the recent months there have been a number of articles and news sources about politicians and other prominent people involved in sex crimes.  There have also been a significant number involving police officers. This study will focus in part on the offense rate for police officers in comparison to other persons, it will also take a look at the re-offense rate for people on the registry. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Q

    I am at a loss as to why; with all of the readily available empirical evidence that proves people (including registrants) tend to not make a habit of repeating crimes that land them on the registry or in prison seem to be ignored by those that could make a difference and restore sanity to this society.
    If only they would acknowledge the truth and act on it, the lives of those already murdered would have some real meaning, and the lives and dignity of many could be restored. The burden on this society would be lifted and that $/burden could actually go towards something that is a real social issue; such as hunger and homelessness. Instead, those that this falls to seemingly prefer to destroy the lives of families and destroy the childhood of the children of registrants, all in the name of their misguided phantom beliefs that are more founded on the hype of a few and not on the facts gathered by years of research and records.
    It seems like this author really did his homework. This is well written and includes citations. All of his conclusions are drawn from state and federal information sources and it is quite an eye opener, especially the research showing that a cop is more likely to commit a sex related crime than a registrant, and that those already on the registry (as the facts show) have an infinitesimal re offense rate. His research shows that the re-offenses rate is 5/10,000 of one percent per year for people on the registry.
    I do not know if all this is true, but I intend to do some checking for myself when time and desire permit.

    phan·tom
    a. Something apparently seen, heard, or sensed, but having no physical reality;
    a ghost or an apparition.
    b. Something elusive or delusive.
    2. An image that appears only in the mind; an illusion.
    3. Something dreaded or despised.

  2. Tim

    This is good, but you need to show that the public registry has no affect or increases the reoffence rate of registrants. Otherwise, it will be assumed that notification is what is keeping the offense rate Low.

    • Q

      I think the numbers show the impotent nature of the registry. The problem is that many of those in positions of power seem to have a strong antipathy towards the facts and truth. And the voices of reason that do see the futility of this exercise (the registry and all of the accompanying laws applied only to registrants )are far outnumbered by those that do not want to acknowledge the facts and act to right this wrong.

      antipathy;
      n. a feeling of strong dislike, opposition, or anger:

      If anyone here goes to the Oath keepers website I’ll bet you will come away with a strong feeling that the registry, misleading of the masses about registrants and complete disregard for the dignity and rights of the people on the registry guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights is nothing more than an exercise in control of the population and to see just how far the law can be twisted. There are not any articles about the registry; they mostly are about the Constitution and Bill of Rights violations.

      Those that believe in the “sex offender” deception had better wake up, because their next. http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

      After what I have seen and experienced I am forced to conclude that most of the government officials that write and push these laws really don’t care about children. They care about their selves.

  3. Janice Bellucci

    With this new information, we will be sure to add police officers to the list of those who actually sexually assault children. Perhaps all police officers should be on a list of people to monitor due to the “high” rate of becoming a sex offender.

  4. Tim

    Some should were cameras, GPS and listening devices on and off duty.

  5. Tim

    …do it if it just saves one child.

  6. B

    It might seem unreasonable to prohibit police officers from entering a park, but let’s remember: it’s not punishment, just regulation and if we can save just one child, it is worth it.

  7. Brubaker

    Notification is a sham deceptive two face phony public policy that is punitive and discriminatory………..If…if this
    notification was “assumed” to work…it would be applied to
    the higher dangerous crime repeaters like robbers…dui…
    assaults..thieves …domestic abuse…drug sellers…etc..etc…
    two face phony’s won’t apply notification to higher repeat crime noted that are more dangerous to the public than ex sexo. It doesn’t work and they know it doesn’t work.

  8. Eric Knight

    Will B. is a friend of mine from my past involvement with the Sex Offender Solutions and Education Network, and he is an excellent resource for much of the information regarding sex offender issues in the country. Will is available to any legal professional with his considerable resources that help the cause.

  9. mch

    Just to add to the posts; when police officers actually do get caught their bail is lower, their time in jail is shorter and their sentences are not as severe as “John Q. Public.” Not sure why that is, but my guess is something like a good ole boys network. I am not so far off the track to say that the majority, yes, MAJORITY, of police sex offenses go unreported because they have the power to threaten and intimidate their victims, which they do with regularity. If one has a daughter of driving age, she is far more likely to be molested during a traffic stop by a policeman than by a coach, teacher, clergy or stranger. The information is out there and we can make sure it is really out into the public’s hands.

    • mike

      mch writes:
      ” Just to add to the posts; when police officers actually do get caught their bail is lower, their time in jail is shorter and their sentences are not as severe as “John Q. Public.” Not sure why that is, ”

      In my research of this BS, this is known as holding a civil servant to a “Higher Standard”. Apparently a “Higher Standard” is a benefit the general public is not worthy of.

      For daily update’s of the stomach turning “Higher Standards” follow this link:
      https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tribute-to-survivors-of-child-sexual-assault-by-law-enforcement-officers/180584842010594

      • Q

        Hi Mike;
        It seems to me that if these civil servants are held to a higher standard their prosecutions/punishment should be more severe because they are aware they are held to a higher standard when they go into their job/positions of trust. Jeez; after everything I have read and seen it seems like many of these people do not have very much integrity in the first place. The system is broken!

  10. Tim

    When I google sex offender re-offense rates, I get a whole list of studies that confirm what this article says. These are mostly not self proclaimed registrant advocacy groups, but government agencies like the justice department and criminology journals. So what’s up. It’s not just the opinion of the so called ultra liberal bleeding hearts. I found a report from the CATO institute that says notification laws are even counter productive, tending to make the re-offense rate of registrants higher by about 1.5%. So, if this is true, without public notification, the rates would be even lower. There needs to be a better more multidisciplinary approach to protecting children, evidence based, attacking the problem with a scalpel instead of a sledge hammer for lack of a more original metaphor. As I see it the real agenda of these related notification and restriction laws is to protect power (corporate and governmental) and shield the powerful from scrutiny, not make people’s lives happier, more productive or safer. Why else would lawmakers ignore the evidence?

  11. Tim

    Also, when I search for information, I don’t get all those “locate a sex offender in your neighborhood” results on the first page. Thank you, Janice, Google and those who opposed the extortion sites.

  12. USA

    Yes, so true. There was a police officer recently arrested. He was working at the airport. He raped an innocent woman. Then, some years back a Detective raped a woman and kidnapped her. Then, most recently, an LA Sheriffs Deputy was arrested and charged with raping a citizen. So, lets see?

    • Q

      Hi USA;
      Google “police officers accused of sex crimes” and you will see how HUGE the problem is.

  13. USA

    Oh, then the Mayor of San Diego was arrested or fired for sexual harassment (although, San Diego was known for some of the most stringent sex offender laws?

  14. Q

    Do a Google search of “police officers accused of sex crimes”. There is a whole lot of them!

  15. Alienated

    Janice,

    This is just the information that needs to be given to the public. Kinda scary that Police officers are more likely to offend than registered citizens. There is so much bogus information out there that the public is confused and needs help understanding the truth. Educate not Hate !

  16. Tim

    It all comes back to equal protection under the law. When the government makes laws that tell potential victims that they should be afraid of the guy next door on a list, and it ignores the greater risks posed by those who you are supposed to trust, whose interest is served? Not the public’s, the victims, not those who are blacklisted with their families and friends. If notification and punishment are going to be applied, then, according to the Constitution, all notifications and punishments shall be applied equally. There is no maybes or buts here.

    • Brubaker

      Well that’s why its a two face phony public policy…..they mislead the public with this registry…….public policy they have really protects and hides the higher dangerous risk of
      crime to the public …they keep people looking at a registry that won’t repeat crime if they ever did………and all the while
      the public is exposed to higher rates of crime not from registry.

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 *

.