NY: Local Legislator Seeks Change to Sex Offender Registration Law

Thousands of sex offenders will come off the state’s registry this year. But one Broome County legislator and a local advocate have teamed up to bring change to New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The state law, enacted in 1996, requires level one sex offenders to be registered for 20 years. By 2016’s end, the whereabouts of many of these criminals will be untraceable — even for police.

But a concerned local legislator has submitted an advisory resolution that would tighten registry regulations. Full Article

Related posts

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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  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
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest article we will not approve your comment.
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is the time to be front & center.

Here is a little more detail on their desire to play mind games.

“Democrat Mary Kaminsky (D-14) submitted a formal request for a change to the state law. She’s partnered with Dave Lindsey, whose 12-year-old daughter Cheri was raped and killed in 1984. He’s recently been fighting for an end to the 20-year expiration period.

Kaminsky wants level one offenders kept on the registry for 25 years minimum — and believes they should only be erased from the database after undergoing a Mental Health Evaluation.”

Here is Kamisky’s contact info, it should be forwarded to all those interested in the issue.

email: mkaminsky2@co.broome.ny.us

She is obviously ignorant of the facts, the question begs, is she pretending or lacks critical thinking skills?

Actually, the original time of registration for those registrants was originally 10 years, but when the original registrants were about ready to come off the registry in 2006, they changed it to 20. Here is the news article from 2006.


Now, the registration deadline is coming up again. So when this law passes, what will happen in five years? Oh, with the “mental health evaluation”, they will just declare everyone incompetent to get off the registry so they will essentially make everyone stay on for life. Got that.

It’s simply out of control. I read somewhere that the Chairman of Crime Victims, Crime and Correction Committee, in NY, thought that Level 1’s should not be affected, as they have a low recidivism rate.

If someone could find information on that I would appreciate it.

Man thid kaminsky is the one that needs the medical evaluatio

Thats great that you gave her email heres what she gotfrom me and hopefully everytime someone has a chance copy paste and send it.

I really wish you,the media, and any other organization would stop publishing, producing or relying on reports and opinions from law makers or any organizations about how great sex offender registration and notification laws work or how residency restrictions and presence restrictions are needed. They are using false statistics and pure myths to further their personal agendas under the guise of protecting children. None of these failed policies have achieved any positive results in the US and are in fact destroying the lives of thousands of innocent children and their families because one of their parents or family members are on such a registry. Individuals and organizations should have enough integrity to investigate their claims before they publish it or rely on it and be sure that there is some credibility to it and not just a platform to exploit children for a law makers personal gains or their own. Here are some facts from the leading authorities on this subject which indicate what a failure these registration and public notification laws are in the US. These laws are a waste of tax dollars and are a misplaced use of valuable law enforcement and government agency resources.

California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB)

Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30)

The full report is available online at


California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)

Under the current system many local registering 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 life’s 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 discernible benefit in terms of community safety.

The full report is available 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 available 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.

People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these 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. They 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.

California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38)

Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8%

The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ


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. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do.

From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M.

For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work.


The Supreme Court has fed the fear of frightening high sex offender recidivism rates that has proven to be universally untrue. It’s become the “go to” source that courts and politicians rely upon for “facts” about sex offender recidivism rates that aren’t true. Its endorsement has transformed random opinions by self-interested non-experts into definitive studies offered to justify law and policy, while real studies by real scientists go unnoticed. The Court’s casual approach to the facts of sex offender re-offense rates is far more frightening than the rates themselves, and it’s high time for correction.

The sources relied upon by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, a heavily cited constitutional decision on sex offender registries, in fact provide no support at all for the facts about sex offender re-offense rates that the Court treats as central to its constitutional conclusions. This misreading of the social science was abetted in part by the Solicitor General’s misrepresentations in the amicus brief it filed in this case. The false “facts” stated in the opinion have since been relied upon repeatedly by other courts in their own constitutional decisions, thus infecting an entire field of law as well as policy making by legislative bodies. Recent decisions by the Pennsylvania and California supreme courts establish principles that would support major judicial reforms of sex offender registries, if they were applied to the actual facts.

I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject.

Thank you for your time.

New York has a history of shifting the time required to register in order to prevent people from falling off. Al Queda got it right when they hit that state.

Thankfully shes a locale politician not a state one. She cannot propose legislation

NY does not have an organized movement. You Cali folks are a bit spoiled, but most states lack the resources to fight back against these laws. You don’t have an organization as rabid as Parents For Megan’s Law to deal with. PFML, run by Laura Ahearn, is the only PRIVATE CORPORATION in America that is paid to conduct sex offender compliance checks. They get $900,000 a year just from Suffolk County for doing this! They run their own private registry and take citizen tips. NY registrants don’t have someone they can just throw a hundred grand at and hope it all goes away. I’m currently working ion getting info on them via FOIL, but I lack the resources to do things that would expedite my efforts. They are a form of organized gang.

If you look at what NY has already done, maybe some of you will at least partially understand why I scoff at your Tiered registry proposal.

It is situations like this that I do not support a tiered system in California. People can continue to push time further back and back. A tiered system means registrations are not unconstitutional. And because they’re not unconstitutional, then the time constraints can be pushed back whenever and however long.

CASOMB dispelled myths about recidivism on three separate occasions in a PDF, citing the very low re-offense rate. Well that truth implies the registration isn’t needed at all, but CASOMB doesn’t want to go all the way to saying registration is unnecessary as supported by scientific evidence – so they’re propping up the tiered system instead.

A tiered system is a necessary first step in a long process to abolishing the registry. There is no way you will get a society that hates and fears RCs to suddenly stop passing these bad laws.

Three tiers allows lower-tier RCs to get off the registry after a certain number of years. When the doomsayers are proven wrong because three-tier doesn’t cause an increase in re-offenses, then we can work to incrementally prove that letting higher tiers off the registry would be acceptable.

When even that step doesn’t cause an increase in re-offenses, then we can challenge the Megan’s website.

You can’t change people’s attitudes overnight. It takes time, and it takes proof.

I’m not a fan of the Tier system even though I am a Tier 1 in my state. If I was a few months older when I committed my crime then I would be a tier 3 with a felony charge. Somehow i would be this great danger to society with no chance for rehabilitation, compared to now as someone who is a minor threat to reoffend.
I would be subjected to registration every 90 days and everyone would think at any moment I could reoffend? No the system is BS and does allow for people who are higher tiers to be given a second chance. What happens with the tier system is all the new laws are being enforced against level 2 and 3 because of peoples perceived notions that the higher level you are the greater danger you pose to society.
But I am very thankful that I will be off the registry in 1 year and a Tier system does allow others the same ability but it screws over a lot of people and makes the system seem fair when its anything but fair.