Have Sex-Offender Registries Gone Too Far?

Some 800,000 registered sex offenders can’t live near parks or schools — or sometimes even in the homes of their own parents. Is it time to re-visit sex-offender registries that cast a wide net and often treat juvenile offenders as if they were adults? Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
 

7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Sexual abuse is an especially heinous crime?” Well, that depends on what you consider “sex.” And is murder an “especially heinous crime?” Funny; I never hear the press or political types talk about crusades to stamp out murder. They just talk about it as a matter of course.

I never considered a chick showing her stuff at a sporting event a crime, let alone a “heinous crime,” or someone relieving themselves behind a building a crime. Where else in the world are these two acts prosecuted as a crime with such devastating and “heinous” consequences? I also have to wonder if there would be “unwavering popular support for tough penalties” for murderers and drunk drivers, drug dealers, corrupt business leaders and bankers if the politicians and news media would quit talking about registrants (with the lowest re-offense rate of all crime? categories) and start talking about these other crimes once in a while.

The facts don’t line up with their (politicians) claims. And it seems all these claims only come from people who get to where they are through an election or otherwise have something to gain.

This is a HUGE problem – the very outlook of this article. Yes, of course sex offender registries have taken it too far – the mere existence of a sex offender registry is too far. But this article implicitly suggests registration is fine, even any of various collateral disabilities are fine, only certain ones, such as residency restrictions, are taking it too far.

No! Never. Any sex offender registry is taking it too far. And any collateral disability is only worse. It is not only the worst of the worst collateral disabilities that are taking it too far.

This is one of the concepts I argue against CA RSOL all the time, often in recent times about the wrong-headed approach to tiers. For instance, we cannot be supporting assessments for tiers, there should be no assessments, they should be tied directly to the offense, and an assessment comes into play only if you apply to be in a lower tier — you cannot be assessed upward, only downward, according to you offense. But CA RSOL is supportive of everyone being assessed! No! The assessments are a MAJOR evil, they are going to haunt us for may decades to come, they are going to be turned into a weapon (imagine George Runner or his senator wife taking charge of assessments!) and be harder to fight than the fight we already have. We cannot promote them now.

We cannot say some things are acceptable. We can accept a compromise on this or that FOR NOW, but we cannot say it is acceptable. This implicit endorsement in this article of registration and most of the collateral disabilities is BAD news for us, not good news. The “good” news here in opposing residency restrictions is merely a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Below is an interesting article on how illegals are not put on the registry or requirement to register… so, the registry is selectively applied and enforced? First according to Senator Janet Nygen who fought against a registry for dogs that attack people in Orange County as a supervisor… now we have illegals are off the thing too… So the registry isn’t fit for man, beast or illegals…again please remind me why I must register?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/15/john-walsh-exposes-illegal-immigrants-not-on-sex-offender-registry/

Good segment. Definitely worth listening to b/c it makes very good points about Registry. ____ met the girl over “Hot or Not” and now he can’t use the Internet for 5 years. If a drug dealer flushes the drugs as the Popo break down the door, is he not allowed to use indoor plumbing for 5 years? If the dealer’s clients made deals over a cellphone, no cell phone for 5 years??

An interesting note: one of the commentators points out that 25% of those listed on Registries are minors between age 11 and 17 yrs old. (True? IDK) The segment also mentions: Static-99; Gunderson Foundation; residency requirements; prosecutors NOT filing charges against children because they feel the Registry for minors is too punitive; etc.