The first thing that must be pointed out is that the sex offender registry came about because of the myth that people convicted of sexual related crimes were always going to reoffend. Some of the numbers that were tossed around at the time that the registry was conceived were 60 to 80% would reoffend. The registry was not originally designed to protect anyone, it was simply there to aid law-enforcement so that they would have suspects to look at because of this belief of high reoffense rates. Full Article by SOSEN
Related posts
-
CA: Bill to make purchasing children for sex a felony in California moves forward, but with some changes
Source: kcra.com 4/16/24 SACRAMENTO, Calif. —A key California Senate committee on Tuesday moved forward with a... -
CA: Purchasing a child for sex is a misdemeanor in California, lawmakers to debate classifying it as a felony
CLICK HERE FOR UPDATED INFORMATION (as of 4/16/24) Source: kcra.com 4/13/24 SACRAMENTO, Calif. —California lawmakers... -
NE: Nebraska lawmakers pass a bill to restore voting rights to newly released felons
Source: apnews.com 4/12/24 OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska lawmakers passed a bill Thursday to restore the...
THANK YOU to Will Bassler for your article in SOSEN ! Just a short paragraph from Sense Offenses Blogspot, Aug, 2009 on PRIVACY:
“So in this matter of the Constitution and privacy, the FRAMERS developed guarantees PRECISELY CONFORMED to the needs of the human being: Given that all human beings were imperfect, yet possessed of an UTTER and INVIOLABLE DIGNITY, then you were entitled to and needed a certain CONFIDENTIALITY. After all, NOBODY’S PERFECT, and if everybody was constantly prompted to HARP on everyone else’s weaknesses and failures, then NOBODY would want to trust or build relationships with anybody, and true CIVIC COMMUNITY would wither away quickly.”
Anyway; get the Runners get the Runners get the Runners get Runners get the Runners GETEM GETEM !!
Even in once civil case against Chuck Rodrick, The mugshot extortionist [see http://leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020140806990/browsedecisions%5D, there is a part that i find fascinating: …………IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: that to prevent further or future harm to Plaintiff’s reputation in the community and protect his employment from the dangers of labeling him as a “sex offender”, Plaintiff is awarded a permanent injunction against Defendants…. ………
So what this basically says that even a Civil Case court even figured out that listing someone as a sex offender is damaging to employment opportunities.
We all need to pay attention to the European court of justice who says that there is a right to be forgotten and demanding that Google remove peoples names from the Internet search engines . Megan’s law would not pass the test in Europe they are more civilized than us . Let us hope at least that it would shoot down any international Megan’s law type of legislation . Registering citizens is anathema to the European union . I would like to encourage everybody here to follow this conversation and post responses to comments and get a really good chance to educate some people I would like to encourage everybody here to follow this conversation and post responses to comments and get a really good chance to educate some people with our responses in the comment section .
The forced execution of a document that purports to convey the signer’s authority, however, does invade the dignity of the human mind; it purports to communicate a deliberate command. The intrusion on the dignity of the individual is not diminished by the fact that the document does not reflect the true state of the signer’s mind. Indeed, that the assertions petitioner is forced to utter by executing the document are false, causes an even greater violation of human dignity. For the same reason a person cannot be forced to sign a document purporting to authorize the entry of judgment against himself, cf. Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 748 (1970), I do not believe he can be forced to sign a document purporting to authorize the disclosure of incriminating evidence. In both cases the accused is being compelled “to be a witness against himself”; indeed, here he is being compelled to bear false witness against himself.