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

How We Will Take Down Public Registries (RSOL)

Although many of our constituents would love to see some sort of silver bullet to end public sex offender registries once and for all, realistically, this is a long-term war. It will take many more battles across many different fronts to win. Those fronts include our legal system, our legislatures, and the general public. It also includes… ourselves! EVERY battlefront is important, and EVERY soldier is needed

The Legal Front

We have many legal “soldiers” out there challenging various aspects of public registration, sometimes for individuals, sometimes for entire groups. These challenges are very important but are merely one part of the war. And as dramatic as a victory may seem, there is no single victory that will take down all public sex offender registries.

In order for a court – even the Supreme Court – to end a law once-and-for-all, it would have to find that the law is unconstitutional on its face. For a law to be judged as facially unconstitutional, there must be no set of circumstances under which it could operate lawfully. The registration of sex offenders is one of the countless registration/regulatory schemes that operates throughout our country. We have registration schemes for school children, voters, automobiles, guns, and even young men must register with Selective Service. These registration schemes have and will continue to operate without violating the Constitution. This is the reason all SORNA challenges are “as applied” rather than facial. With the exception of First Amendment challenges, courts will typically consider a challenger’s unique set of facts and render an opinion as to whether or not the law is unconstitutional as applied to those particular facts.

If an appeals court finds that some aspect of registration is unconstitutional as applied to a person or persons, this does not prohibit the legislative branch from attempting to enact a fix. This is why sex offender registration, especially public registration, must also be fought through the legislative process. Courts can help prevent the ever-encroaching reach; however, those who wear black robes are not empowered to make our laws, nor can they prohibit those we elect from enacting them. Courts are limited to interpreting or correctly applying laws that are in dispute.

RSOL is closely monitoring constitutional challenges around the country, hoping to assist in constitutional challenges brought by our legal soldiers.

The Legislative Front

Bad laws are being proposed every year by well-meaning legislators whose constituents are telling them that they want to be protected from bad guys and bogeymen. Our legislative soldiers must stand up and speak up when such laws are introduced. Legislators are often shocked that there can be a “down side” to get-tough bills and that such laws cause more harm than good. It is our right and our duty as citizens to monitor and speak out on legislative issues. Our soldiers can also strive to introduce laws that will help improve the lot of persons convicted of sexual offenses (or any other conviction, for that matter). Building working relationships with lawmakers takes time, diplomacy, and persistence, but the rewards of having a legislator “champion” willing to work with us are well worth this effort.

RSOL’s Advocates and Affiliates are among the many legislative soldiers busy fighting bad laws.

The Public Opinion Front

Anyone visiting this site is probably already aware of the huge problems in our justice system and our laws, especially regarding sexual offenses and sexual offenders. Most Americans are not. Almost daily, they see news items and police warnings about abducted children, horrible rapes, dangerous strangers, and incurable sex offenders. John and Jane Public have been terrified into accepting bad laws and policies. In fact, they are begging for them. John and Jane Public need an education and a serious reality check.

Consequently, our soldiers must also stand and speak up whenever they hear untruths, providing solid facts and taking the unpopular stand against the easier “tough on crime” views. As the underdogs, we must do plenty of homework and assure that every point we make is verifiable, every story true and strong.

Every member of RSOL, and indeed every member of the public who has become aware of the incredible falsehoods and constitutional violations resulting from our country’s sex offender policies, must fight on critical battlefronts.

The Personal Opinion Front

All of us have our own internal battles to wage in this war, too. We have arrived with plenty of preconceptions and gaps in our own understanding of the big picture. Each registered citizen must recognize that he/she is not “unique.” Every registrant is suffering to some degree, and nearly everyone was forced to take a plea or got worse than he had hoped for during trial and sentencing. Likewise, family and friends must come to recognize that this cause is far bigger than their own personal struggles. NOBODY deserves public humiliation; it serves no public safety purpose and, in fact, can increase the risk. We have to distinguish ourselves from John and Jane Public by acknowledging and ACTING ON the knowledge that our “get tough” policies are failing us, and that public registries are not effective nor are they appropriate for ANY person.

We also have to take a hard look at our individual political stands and voting habits. Have we been voting for “tough on crime” and “incarceration nation” politicians all this time? Cheering when some Bad Guy “gets what’s coming to him?” Maybe it’s time to rethink our own roles and make some changes.

Who Are Our Soldiers?

Each one of us must find the strength within ourselves to take a stand against harsher sentences, public registration, and civil commitment. As within any army, though, there are a host of different roles to play. At the one extreme are those willing to take the heat and stand up publicly to loudly protest injustice, even at some personal risk. Others speak in a more measured way in legislative hearings, city council meetings, and boardrooms to assure that facts are heard and our Constitution is remembered. Still others write and publish and research and share the truth with as wide an audience as possible. There are soldiers, both attorneys and plaintiffs, willing to go the extra distance on legal appeals that will bring relief to hundreds or even thousands.

But by far the largest number of foot soldiers are those who reach out, one-on-one, and connect with their families, friends, neighbors, random passers-by… taking any and every opportunity to educate and challenge those deep, knee-jerk fears and assumptions that have brought us to this point. Rich or poor, young or old, well spoken or shy, strong or weak, whoever we are, we have a common message: citizens labeled “sex offender” are NOT monsters but human-beings who deserve to be treated with the same human dignity as everyone else. They are no more dangerous than any other neighbor. The rights we have taken away from them can be taken away from ANYONE once that door has been pushed further open.

So RSOL asks of you, have you found your role in this war to bring down sex offender registries? We hope we can count on you!

Okay Troops, let’s get marching!

By Brenda Jones….

Full Post

Join the discussion

  1. HOOKSCAR

    Will be there for the S.D. meeting on the 20th. My fiancé and I both will.

  2. mike

    This is exactly why we need an attorney that will refine and format the following into a proper court document and ad case law and perfect it then allow access to it so as that any rso can insert their own info and experiences in place of mine and file it pro se. It’s called a boilerplate motion and once one is granted many many more can be filed.

    I the plaintiff ___________________________ do hereby bring forth this motion for Declaratory and/or Injunction relief.
    This motion is being brought forth as a as applied challenge to the constitutionality of the sex offender registration and notification laws or Megans law as applied to me.

    Introduction.
    I’m asking the court to grant me Injunction and or Declaratory relief and to permanently enjoin any and all local, state and federal entities from enforcing any and all of the sex offender registration requirements and notifications laws and or Megans law as applied to me.
    I am a non-violent, non-contact first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago. There was never any physical contact between myself and any victim. I completed my prison sentence and parole supervision without any incidents or violations despite all the obstacles and conditions of parole that were placed on me because of the sex offender designation. I have been arrest free and a completely law abiding citizen since my release in 2008. I do not pose any risk to the public. I was already severely punished for my offense and have been subjected to intensive monitoring and supervision while on parole. I should not be subjected to these registration and notification laws that involve consequences that are severely detrimental to so many aspects of my life.

    Governments have an obligation to protect people and take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction to protect them from violence. One element of that duty is to take measures to deter and prevent crime. They must do so, however, within a human rights framework, which places restrictions on those measures that infringe on the human rights guaranteed to all. A person’s conviction of a crime does not extinguish his or her claim to just treatment at the hands of government.

    Sex offender laws interfere with a panoply of protected rights: the rights to privacy, to family and home, to freedom of movement and liberty (including the right to work and to reside where one chooses ), and to physical safety and integrity (including protection from harm by private as well as public actors). None of these rights are absolute. But laws that infringe upon them must be necessary to serve a legitimate public interest, the relationship between the interest and the means chosen to advance it must be a close one, and the laws must be the least restrictive possible, they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected.
    The principle of “proportionality” as it applies to assessing the legitimacy of restrictions imposed on human rights is used to ensure that rights are not denied arbitrarily, and that any human rights restrictions are rational and evidence-based.
    It is important to recognize that constitutional protections must be afforded to all regardless of the public having a perception of certain classes having a pariah reputation.
    The government cannot allow rights to be taken away “based solely upon the category of the crime for which the offender is found guilty.”

    Issues.

    There are several constitutional violations that I will outline in this motion and that I would like this court to consider and address.

    1. The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my fundamental constitutional right to life, liberty, property and my freedom of movement.

    2. The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my fundamental privacy rights.

    3.  The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my fundamental constitutional right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive official action.

    4. The sex offender registration and notification laws are completely irrational as applied to me in my case.

    Facts.

    1. The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my fundamental constitutional right to liberty and freedom of movement by severely infringing on my ability to travel both interstate and intrastate and also international travel. With all the different state laws and local ordinances that are in place and the constant introduction of new legislation in the different states and the constantly changing local ordinances in thousands of cities and counties across the country, it makes it virtually impossible for me to travel or visit anywhere in this country without a very real potential for violating one of these laws or ordinances. It is virtually impossible for a person of average intelligence to research, assimilate and abide by all the different state laws and local ordinances that apply to registered sex offenders across the country. The punishments for violating one of these laws or ordinances are severe. It is a violation of my fundamental right to liberty and to travel in this country. The registration and notification laws makes it impossible for me to travel to a multitude of major countries in the world as they are notified by our government of my registration status so therefore I am denied entry. These are not hypothetical situations and are not minor inconviences or limited collateral consequences of registration but are major violations of my fundamental rights to liberty and to travel both in and out of this country and these violations will continue as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.

    The Bill of Rights lists specifically enumerated rights. The Supreme Court has extended fundamental rights by recognizing several fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including but not limited to:
    The right to interstate travel. The right to intrastate travel.
    Any restrictions a government statute or policy places on these rights are evaluated with strict scrutiny. The Bill of Rights was specifically adopted to protect fundamental freedoms from the will of the majority.

    2. The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my fundamental privacy rights by making public my personal address and current photo which is not public information and which puts me in physical harm every time I enter or leave my home and even while I’m in my home I can not feel safe. This information is also being publicly distributed on the internet from privately owned and operated websites such as homefacts.com. That information being made public puts not only myself but my families lives and property in danger of physical harm, harrasment and vandalism.These claims are not hypothetical situations or exaggerations, these claims are facts and the possibilities of these incidents occurring are real and in fact some have already occurred in my case. This is not a minor collateral consequence of registration but a major violation of my fundamental right to privacy. The Megans law website also displays my criminal record that used to only be available to authorized individuals who meet certain criteria and have a need to know basis, not to the general public at a click of a computer mouse. Again, these violations will continue as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.

    3.  The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my fundamental constitutional right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive official action.

    A. The fact that the courts have previously stated that registration and notification laws are minor collateral consequences of a regulatory scheme is simply unreasonable to conclude now in light of all the recent research that has been done on this subject and based on the severity of those consequences I now face because of the registration and notification laws.
    These laws are unreasonable and are grossly disproportionate as they severely infringe on my fundamental rights while not achieving any legitimate legislative purpose or objectives of increasing public safety, preventing recidivism or reducing sexual abuse as demostrated in the following reports from some of the leading authorities on this subject.

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of year report 2014. (page. 13)

    Under the current system many local registaring agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry.
    Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the lifes of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernable benefit in terms of community safety.

    The full report is availible online at.
    http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231

    National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America.

    The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.

    The full report is available online at.
    https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350

    The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483

    Conclusion.
    The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.

    The full report is availible online at.
    http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483    

    These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

    The court should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or the courts in previous decisions as to the need for the laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. The court should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. 

    SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM ANALYSIS
    A State-by-State Comparison of Recidivism Rates Between Sex Offenders and All Felony Offenders (1983-2010)
    © 2010 Sam Caldwell. All Rights Reserved.

    Summary

    The following is a collection of recidivism studies comparing the failure rate of all felony offenders to the failure rate of sex offenders who have committed a new sex crime. All of the studies presented on this page are carefully selected state-sponsored studies, authorized by either the federal Government (US Department of Justice) or the several state legislatures and their respective state agencies. Every effort has been made to eliminate purely academic or politically motivated research.

    The findings in this analysis stand in contrast to conventional wisdom perpetuated during the 1990s. It is a false assumption that sex offender recidivism rates are higher than non-sex offenders. It is also a myth that the majority of sex crimes are committed by convicted or registered sex offenders. Further it is a myth that the many hours of legislative testimony on this subject is backed by research, as the majority of all research on this subject shows that (a) sex offender and overall recidivism varies from state to state as a result of policies enacted in a given state, and (b) sex offender recidivism is surprisingly lower than previously reported by political figures or the media. In fact, as this analysis concludes, the average recidivism rate reported by the studies collected herein is approximately 9%, compared to an average 42% recidivism for all felony offenders.

    The full report is available online at.
    http://recidivism.me/

    Bureau of Justice Statistics

    5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE

    WASHINGTON, D.C.—Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today.

    The full report is available online at.
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm 

    Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013

    Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up

    The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates.

    The full report is available online at.
    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf

    Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy.

    A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7%

    Link to Report:
    http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf

    Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.

    The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%

    Link to Report:
    http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf

    Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

    B. These laws are arbitrary when applied in a blanket enforcement policy that makes no distinctions between myself and those who may or may not pose any risk to the public and provides no due process to make those determinations.

    C. These laws are oppressive as they affect and limit employment as very few employers will hire me simply because I am on a sex offender website that is accessible to the general public. These laws are also oppressive because they restrict or limit my ability to travel for work or to be employed by local, state or federal agencies and severely affects my ability to obtain a business licence or business loans. They also limit what professions and careers that I can pursue. Also my personal and professional relationships are affected in a severely negative way because of my inclusion on the Megans law website and the registry.
    These issues are not minor inconveniences but are major obstacles to my financial stability and to my fundamental right to life and liberty for me and my family.
    It also affects housing because very few property owners or property management organizations will rent to me for fear of vandalism and or the loss of present or potential tenants because of the accessibility to the registry by the general public. I am reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I may violate some local ordinance or be forced to move because of some new law or ordinance being enacted and applied retroactively. I am also reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I will be subjected to even worse harrasment and vandalism by the community in which I move then I have allready endured in my present location.
    These laws also create real fears of being the victim of vigilante attacks, harrasment and vandalism which is oppressive as it makes me limit my activities to avoid being outside of my residence for fear of being harmed or harassed. I have had to call the police twice due to my family and I being physically threatened in one instance and having threats and profanity written all over our porch on the second incident simply because my information is on the Megans law website. We have had our vehicles vandalized and our lifes threatened because I am subject to these registration and notification laws.
    These laws are also oppressive as they cause me severe psychosocial stressors that cause major mental and physical disorders which can and do affect my abiity to perform job duties or perform normal daily activities and to reintegrate into society. My psychology reports by the parole department states that I was being subjected to severe psychosocial stressors because of the sex offender registration and notification laws as applied to me.
    Once again these are not hypothetical, exaggerated or isolated incidents that have happened to other people but personal experiences in my case. I cannot move forward or successively reintergrate back into society because of all the collateral consequences caused by the registration and notification laws.The official action of requiring me to registar as a sex offender and the official action which includes my inclusion on the Megans law website is the cause of this oppression. These are severe violations of my fundamental rights. Again, these violations will continue as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.

    4. The sex offender registration and notification laws are completely irrational as applied to me in my case.  
    Since I am a non-violent, first time offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago there is no rational basis to continue to subject me to these sex offender  registration and notification laws that have consequences that destabilize my life and restrict my abilities to reintegrate into society and actually increases my risk of re-offense while not achieving any legislative objective of preventing sexual abuse or increasing public safety. Since these laws have been seen as strictly regulatory in nature and not considered part of the punishment for an offense, there must be some evidence that the regulations actually achieve some legislative objective. These laws were originally designed to give law enforcement a tool to track and apprehend sexually violent predators, child abducters/rapist and habitual repeat offenders when such acts have been committed in the community but have since been expanded to the point to make the registration and notification laws useless to law enforcement or the general public.
      Just because these laws are so popular within the legislature or the public does not mean that there is a rational basis for such laws. With the facts and evidence of all the destabilizing collateral consequences I endure and all the recent research done on this subject there is overwhelming evidence that these laws are completely irrational especially when applied to non-violent, first time offenders such as myself. The fact that the legislature and some people in the general public state that they have some sort of “right to know” who lives near them or what someone’s background is is simply untrue. I know of no such constitutional “right to know”

    The recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family  is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world…

    In conclusion.
    The sex offender registration and notification laws or Megans law, as applied to me severely violate my fundamental rights to life, liberty, property and my freedom of movement. These laws also violate my fundamental privacy rights, my fundamental right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions and these laws have no rational basis in my case since these laws do in fact increase known risk factors for re-offense without achieving any legitimate legislative objectives in increasing public safety, preventing sexual abuse or preventing recidivism.

    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to my knowledge on  __________
    Signed: _____________________________
                          
    Prayer.
    I pray the court grant me a Declaratory judgement and/or Injunction relief or any other relief the court deems necessary and to enjoin local, state, and federal agencies from requiring me to register as a sex offender or subjecting me to the notification laws or Megans law that are unconstitutional for reasons stated above as applied in my case.

    • Mike

      I think just the bottom half of what you wrote is more on track, i dont know if you know it but the U.S. government has a study they did in 1994 and in that study the results show recidivism at 9% and a study in 2006 and the results show recidivism at 3.6% that means the government is committing fraud besides breaking all on the registraints civil rights, they knew the truth before megans law and passed it knowing the real truth and did it anyways and they are profiting from the registry and gain political positions by claiming they are tough on crime and doing all this on a lie, if you go to the Doj’s website is one study the government did and on Smart.gov is another study the gov. Did which shows 3.6% & 9% recidivism, plus every single state in the U.S. has also done a study and shows recidivism below 5% plus where they got the 80% recidivism was from a magazine from the author of the article which he has since retracted his story and did an actual study an yup same results of below 5%, if we want to take down the registry we all must gather every single study to prove 1. Recidivism is below 5% sn 2. To prove they lied and knew the truth before they passed these laws and thats fraud and also broke all kinds of laws which every persons on the registry can sue and have the registry and most of the laws removed plus money for breaking alot of our civil rights on a lie with the evidence to prove it the evidence is there, i believe the government is keeping everyone distracted with the lies and slowly taking down these laws 1 by 1 and that will take eons plus so can avoid a massive lawsuit.

  3. mike

    Like everyone says were not going to be able to abolish the registry since it would have to be proven that its unconstitutional in every case which it is not. The laws can always be viewed as rational and possibly effective for high risk svp so will always pass on any facial challenge. It will have to be challenged as a as applied challenge individually or maybe class action with people with very similar situations.

  4. Pat

    It seems to be unconstitutional in every case where it is applied not as punishment for a crime, or a condition of parole/probation/post release supervision.
    It removes a free mans right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. It also removes these from anyone else in the same household who were never convicted.

  5. mike

    Yes I agree but it would take a master professer at law who can articulate impeccably to do it. I beleive it can be done but it would be extremely difficult. The as applied challenge should be much easier for almost any attorney that has any ability at all with all the recent research that’s been done.

  6. mike

    The courts will actually grant attorney fees in such cases as they did in the following.

    In January of 2009, the Court also granted plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees in the amount of $145,823.50. The defendants appealed the District Court’s decision, and requested that the court stay the order of attorney fees pending appeal, though the Court denied the motion to stay.

  7. mike

    I noticed there were elements missing in my motion here is a revised conclusion I don’t know if anyone cares or reads this but it is making me feel like I am doing something more then just sending letters or calling people that can give a sh.. less what I have to say.

    In conclusion.
    The sex offender registration and notification laws or Megans law, as applied to me severely violate my fundamental rights to life, liberty, property and my freedom of movement. These laws also violate my fundamental privacy rights, my fundamental right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions and will continue to cause me irreparable damage if the court fails to grant me relief. These laws also have no rational basis in my case since these laws do in fact increase known risk factors for re-offense without achieving any legitimate legislative objectives in increasing public safety, preventing sexual abuse or preventing recidivism. It is in the publics best interest to grant me this relief as it will decrease my risk for re-offense, increase my ability to reintergrate into society and increase the probability that I will maintain stability in my life and be a law abiding, productive member of society. It will also allow governmental agencies and law enforcement agencies to redirect their limited resources to monitor higher risk offenders more intensively thereby increasing public safety.

  8. Mike

    Ok you have it wrong there a easier way to take down the registry, think about it why were they put up in the first place? They claimed recidivism was at 80% an that came from an article in a magazine not a study an they jumped on it without proof, well if you go on the Doj’s website and smart.gov and both have done studies and both show recidivism is 3.6 to 3.9 and every state in the United States has done a study on recidivism and all 50 states show recidivism is below 5% so theres your silver bullet, they used a scare tactic to help convince the voters that there is an ergant need to pass these laws before another child is molested, here’s another problem and this one is not our problem it will be there’s because they know what these studies show the recidivism rate is and they have not immediately taken down the registry and that’s fraud and they knew the person who wrote the article in that magizine who did not do a study he has since retracted his story and since done an actual study an his shows the same below 5%, so if the word can be spread around and as many people gather all these studies make copies and contact every media source send them all the studies and to every state an government agencies and thats just a start because the doj an smart.gov an all the others can be sued for fraud because the know the truth and it’s on there websites that might even be a criminal act, so there you have it.

    • Bo

      What would be your response to them saying in reply, “it’s only low now, on all those studies you show, becuase of the registry”

      • AJ

        @Bo:
        “What would be your response to them saying in reply, “it’s only low now, on all those studies you show, becuase of the registry””
        —–
        At minimum, I’d refer them to the 21(?)-year study done in NJ, covering the 10 years before and 10 years after ML was imposed. That study found no significant change in behavior due to or benefit from ML.

        • Bo

          And their reply dejour is that they rest are being “under reported” during that time. Then they cite suspicious data from polygraphs of inmates and those on probation.

          I’m for all the contesting of the registry and the more I learn, the more nuanced I see the challange of bringing down the registry.

          The big follow up is then getting a win to apply to others, then somehow preventing the legislature from making a more narrowly tailored law replacing it requiring the whole process to be done again.

        • Josh

          @Bo

          Your last paragraph perfectly describes the situation in Michigan as it relates to getting it applied to everyone( it is a certified class action now) and the main reason that I’ve been given by multiple people from the Michigan Aclu that they fear legislative reprisal causing them to have to start litigation from scratch again. This is reason for the ongoing “negotiations” which apparently has made very little progress from every thing that I have heard. Confidence that our legislature will actually budge on anything is nil…..As stated before many times it will be the courts that force the real changes to happen…

        • Will Allen

          Bo (March 29, 2019):

          Surely they would not say that crimes are being committed by people who are listed on their glorious Registries and those are not being reported! Surely not. What would that say about their glorious Registries?

          “Crimes” committed by people who are listed are over-reported. I’m certain that people who are listed are even convicted of more crimes than committed. No proof is needed, after all.

          I don’t know this “dejour” word. Should’ve been “du jour”? Just trying to help.

        • AJ

          @Bo:
          “And their reply dejour is that they rest are being “under reported” during that time.”
          —–
          Yes, at which point we supply data showing that registries 1) cause under-reporting due to the effects they have on the offender (ex.: nobody wants to send the breadwinner to prison), and 2) prosecutors alter their behaviors to achieve a conviction, including plea negotiating a lesser charge to avoid registration. Nothing like unintended consequences, particularly ones that are counter-productive to the goal of the registries.
          =====

          “Then they cite suspicious data from polygraphs of inmates and those on probation.”
          —–
          And we point out the data is suspicious and/or incomplete. After all, even the Feds say RCs are a heterogeneous group, so using such data is flawed from the start. On a side note, I feel that since polygraphs are directly inadmissible in court, they should be indirectly inadmissible as well.
          =====

          “The big follow up is then getting a win to apply to others, then somehow preventing the legislature from making a more narrowly tailored law replacing it requiring the whole process to be done again.”
          —–
          Yes. As I’ve said before, legislatures can pass bad and unconstitutional laws faster than the courts can strike them. This is why unless and until SCOTUS lays out some sort of boundaries, at which it’s hinted but hasn’t acted, we’re in for a long slog.

        • Mike

          How would i respond to “its only low now because of the registry” well thats because the government already did several studies before megans laws we’re inacted plus there are studies on the registries whether they reduce recidivism rates and they proves the registry has not done anything plus if recidivism rates we’re and are 3.6% that also proves the registry is a useless tool except to make them financial gain & political positions, i don’t understand why would you fight me on this instead of ironing out any kinks unless you work for the government and don’t think it’s not possible because anything is possible, lets do this and put this truth out there, this is not the only time the government has lied to the American people to get what they want done, lets not fight among us lets work together and use and explore every Avenue, United we stand, decided we fall, may God bless us all and keep praying.

      • jesse

        “Excellent!” would be my response. And “if this constitutional, civil requirement results in increased public safety, let’s have it for all criminals! Why don’t we have such an easy fix? Especially in light of the fact that the sex offender registry makes the difference between recidivism rates of 80% (frightening and high) and 5% (lower than any other group of criminals save murderers)?”

        What possible reason could there be to not want to reduce criminal re-offending? Think of the one man, woman, child, saved! The drugs not sold, the cars not stolen, the wives not beaten! Think of all the resources we could save if we did not have to incarcerate repeat offenders! All with a simple registry, totally constitutional and effective.

        Reasons I can think of is that it is complete BS. What else could there be?

        • Will Allen

          Yep, funny.

          That’s all that we need to know to understand that the $EX Offender Registries aren’t really for public safety, protecting children, and the rest of their lies. The $ORs are for gossiping. They are for making government jobs and growing big government.

          People who support them are harassers who are too stupid to understand that they are paying dearly for their harassment.

    • Facts should matter

      Mike, the ONLY reason these oppressive monitoring and tracking laws remain on the books is because of two things ONLY:

      A: HATE

      B: MONEY

      You should know this! Emotion and hate trumps facts and logic with John Q. Public.

    • Bo

      I love the fire and vigour, but if you read the case law, it becomes irrelevant.

      It would seem it needs to be attacked in one of the 7 ways stipulated doe vs synder.

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 *

.