MD: Ruling could scrub quarter of sex offender registry

Admin

One-fourth of the names on Maryland’s sex offender registry could be removed after the state’s top court expanded Monday on an earlier ruling that adding offenders from before the list was created violated the state constitution. The Court of Appeals declared last year that the state could not require the registration of people who committed their crimes before October 1995, when the database was established. State officials removed the one name in question in that case but maintained that federal law required them to keep older cases in the database. Full Article

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 or abbreviate their name. 
  24. Please check for typos, spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors before submitting.  Comments that have many errors will not be approved. 
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.  
 

3 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hmmm….. “Lisae C. Jordan, the executive director of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said the ruling means Maryland will now need to look at other ways to track dangerous offenders.”

I have to wonder just how many of these people are truly “dangerous”. If anyone ever bothered to check the facts they would have to conclude that the probability of a dangerous “offender” being released in this group is indeed very small, and more than likely non existent.

“Lisae C. Jordan, the executive director of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said the ruling means Maryland will now need to look at other ways to track dangerous offenders.”

“We cannot rely on the registry,” she said. “We need to take other steps.”

Oh really?!?!

I wonder how many people Jordan has “saved” and how many sexual assaults the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault has prevented. I personally have looked long and hard and was unable to find one single documented case of someone being “protected” or “just one child” being “saved” by organizations like her’s, and the same goes for the registry and the plethora of laws aimed at people forced to become registrants.

I believe the more likely reason these victims rights groups exist if purely for financial gain; nothing more, and nothing less. Something to consider is the fact that the National Center For Missing And Exploited Children has, as of 2008 received $32 million in government aid. What’s that? Unbelievable you say? Just check the centers 2008 annual report for 2008 at

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/ResourceServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=3679,NC171.pdf

I strongly suggest anyone that cares about or is a registrant get the book by Alex Landon / Elaine Haaeck titled “A Parallel Universe”. The above information can be found in chapter 15, page 156. This book documents the beginning of the registry from start up to now. I believe anyone that gets this book will be as appalled as I am in the way this entire mess / lie cam into existence.

0
View Replies (2)