ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Jan 11 – San Diego, Feb 8 – Los Angeles, Mar 7 – Berkeley details

Dec 14 Audio

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

California

Calls for limiting sex-offender registry will be tough to act on

SACRAMENTO — The board that oversees the state’s sex-offender laws has a seemingly unconventional public safety pitch: Californians would be safer if the sex-offender registry were pared down.

The California Sex Offender Management Board wants to eliminate lifetime registration requirements for some sex offenders. It’s proposing that lower-risk sex offenders be removed from the registry 10 to 20 years after their crimes to make the list more relevant and focused on higher-risk offenders. That way, law enforcement and the public can better differentiate between offenders who pose the greatest risks and those not likely to re-offend.

But the board needs a change in law to do this, and the idea is opposed by some crime victim groups. It’s also not an easy feat to find an elected official to carry a bill that eases restrictions on sex offenders.

The board, headed by Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, has recommended paring down the list for the past eight years, to no avail. In the coming months, it will launch an outreach campaign in hopes of calming public fears about the proposal, then look for a lawmaker willing to author a bill next year.

“If you say to people that sex offenders don’t have to register after 10 years, they freak out,” O’Malley said. “But we have police treating the child rapist who was just paroled the same as the guy who committed indecent exposure 50 years ago. There aren’t unlimited resources; we need to prioritize where they put their attention.”

California is one of four states that requires sex offenders to register for life, which has contributed to the state’s ballooning registry. The state’s registry has 74,000 people on it. Another 22,000 sex offenders will be required to register once they’re released from prison.

The state operates two registries — one created as a tracking tool for law enforcement that has been around for nearly 70 years and another that was created in 2004 as a public website under Megan’s Law. Not all sex offenders are required to appear on the public registry, such as in some first time-offenses or in cases where the victim was a relative.

Once a person is required by a judge to register as a sex offender, there are few ways to have the name removed from the registry. For example, California’s registry includes 650 sex offenders whose last convictions were in the 1940s and 1950s, according to data compiled by the Sex Offender Management Board. Another 3,000 were last convicted of a sex crime in the 1960s and 1970s.

Tiered system sought

Under the board’s recommendation, California would create a tiered system that allows people convicted of misdemeanor sex crimes to be removed from the law enforcement and public registries after 10 years if there’s no other conviction. Under the second tier, a risk assessment already used by the state would determine whether people convicted of a felony sex crime could be removed from the registries after 20 years without a subsequent crime.

O’Malley said the third tier would require lifetime registration for those with multiple victims or whose risk assessment indicates they are likely to re-offend.
Forty-six states already use some kind of tiered system, O’Malley said.

If some some sex offenders were removed from the law enforcement registry, the board said, officers would no longer have to track sex offenders who have been considered low-risk for at least a decade. With officers in some cities assigned to monitor hundreds of sex offenders, narrowing who is required to register allows law enforcement to focus on those who need the most monitoring.

Removing sex offenders from the public registry creates an incentive for those who have been crime-free for at least a decade so that they can begin to lead normal lives, said Tom Tobin, a Bay Area psychologist who works with sex offenders.

“Less important to some people, but not to be sneezed at, is why continue to destroy these people’s lives? There is no point and no benefits,” said Tobin, who is vice chair of the Sex Offender Management Board.

Citing right to know

The tiered system, however, is opposed by many victim groups, such as Crime Victims United, who argue that purposely shielding the pasts of sex offenders does not serve the public’s best interest. Those groups say the focus should remain on justice for the victims, given the lifelong impact of sex abuse.

“It’s an issue where the public should be able to know their children are safe,” said Nina Salario, board member of Crime Victims United. “Someone could have been a coach and committed a less egregious offense, but egregious enough to get on the registry, and after they are off the registry they can go back to coaching.”

Former Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, tried twice to pass legislation creating the tiered system in California, with his first bill garnering 19 ayes among the 82 Assembly members. His second bill stalled in committee.

Already, there’s a bill this year that would expand the registry.

Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore (Riverside County), said AB2569 closes an exemption in the registry many parents may find alarming — the policy that sex offenders who are convicted of molesting their own children, siblings or grandchildren are able to be granted a waiver from appearing on the publicly searchable registry if the crime was not penetration or oral copulation.

The state Department of Justice said that over the past two years, 121 sex offenders were removed from the public registry, also known as Megan’s Law, because their victim was a family member.

Tool for parents

Melendez said excluding the information from the public registry takes away a tool parents have when researching their neighborhood or deciding whether to allow their child to spend the night at a friend’s house.

“For me, I think if you are sick enough to do this to one of your own family members, you won’t hesitate to do it to someone else,” said Melendez, who is vice chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee. “I don’t see why we should keep the public in the dark about who in their neighborhood may be a potential threat to their child.  When my daughter goes to a friend’s house you better believe I check that website, knowing that it won’t tell me everything.”

Melendez said she’s heard arguments in support of eliminating lifetime registration requirements for some sex offenders.

“I’m hesitant, but open-minded enough to listen,” she said.

Original Article on San Francisco Chronicle (Paywall)

–Melody Gutierrez is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: mgutierrez@sfchronicle.comTwitter@MelodyGutierrez

Join the discussion

  1. David

    *shrug* I think if I were on the Sex Offender Management Board, I would probably resign. After all, what’s the point if nobody listens to the recommendations?

    • Timmr

      They listen when it comes to recommending for more punishment as with Chelsea’s Law.

      • Robert Curtis

        Your right… to place more restrictions on registrants is the call of the day.

        Sometimes to get progress in this regard it might be better to sound to be more restrictive but engineer the application in a way that it is in fact more effective and less directly punitive.

        Put in place easier direct access to the registry via the local sheriff’s department website via password and time of access. Change the 290 registration act to being a tiered registry via the use of our courts at time of sentencing.

        What I mean is make the tiered registry proportional to and as part of probation and parole guidelines at sentencing. Many are on lifetime parole (some formal, some informal)…while on such probation and parole the requirement would be to register but once done with probation and parole the requirement to register would also end.

        This way our judges can determine case by case by discretion what those requirements will be at sentencing and while on probation or parole courts can modify conditions at their discretion.

        Sometimes the courts may impose harsher conditions and at other times they may render more relaxed requirements. This would address the one size fits all approach that we have now that is ineffective.

        • Timmr

          You would also have to eliminate or at least reduce mandatory minimums, which take away the discretion of the courts to do what you are saying. I agree, move all this crap back into the punishment and correction realm where it belongs and away from the regulatory.

        • David Kennerly

          They should call it the “Take that, you violent predators!” law.

        • Timmr

          You mean, one more “Take that, you violent predators!” law. Or rather it is “Oh, did we leave something out? Sorry it took so long, but we think we were too lenient on you, we need to smack you with this new punishment also” laws.

    • Anon

      Crime Victim’s United is the prison guard union’s creation. Google it.

  2. Joe Shmo

    The registry should be managed by the CASOMB not politicians. For such a liberal state, CA is pretty draconian in its application of what it considers “justice”.

    • sadandmad

      Right? Hopefully there’ll be some one liberal enough to set us free. But I doubt it

      • Frank

        It might just take someone “conservative” enough. Someone who strictly abides by the Constitution. Someone who believes that “All Men are truly created equal”. Someone who has a strong religious belief where only God has the right punish us continually in this manner. A person who has the deep down belief to forgive people for their sins.

        • sadandmad

          Greed > compassion for the politicians. Conservatives might be more constitutionally minded,but harder on crime

  3. Avig

    The SOMB proposal makes a lot of sense: remove from the registry people who have demonstrated they do not re-offend, and enable the limited resources of law enforcement to focus on preventing new offenses. Everyone benefits from this change.

  4. wonderin

    Tool for parents

    “Melendez said excluding the information from the public registry takes away a tool parents have when researching their neighborhood or deciding whether to allow their child to spend the night at a friend’s house.”

    I’ve always said: Life is simple for simpletons!

    “The tiered system, however, is opposed by many victim groups, such as Crime Victims United, who argue that purposely shielding the pasts of sex offenders does not serve the public’s best interest. Those groups say the focus should remain on justice for the victims, given the lifelong impact of sex abuse.

    Which translates to: their sense of justice, which encompasses a lifelong sentence of pain and suffering for the registrant and their family members (including innocent children).

    Now I ask, who are really “the control freaks” as so many people like to label registrants?

    • Timmr

      “Which translates to: their sense of justice, which encompasses a lifelong sentence of pain and suffering for the registrant and their family members (including innocent children)”
      … including the former victims who don’t view themselves as victims anymore and want to free themselves from the label by empowering themselves to forgive.

    • Anon

      What else can we expect from the prison guard union’s Crime Victim’s United? The more in prison, the bigger the union.

      “The three-strikes law sponsor is the correctional officers’ union and that is sick!” [Justice] Kennedy said of the measure mandating life sentences for third-time criminal offenders.

      http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/04/local/la-me-kennedy4-2010feb04

  5. EnemyWithin

    Either you register and place on a public website ALL felons or none. The American Citizen in California is not being “equally protected” if only sex offenders, arsonists and some drug offenders are required to register.

    A tall, strong assertive man, unmarried with no kids is at a very low risk to being a victim of a convicted sex offender. However that same man is defenseless against his new neighbors who have three convictions for identity theft, befriend him and offer to collect his mail and watch his home when he goes on vacation. Why is that man not offered the same easy information to protect himself? Identity theft is one of the most costly crimes in the US and yet Americans are not protected.

    A family with excellent parents, who review the registry and talk to their kids about the risks of being a victim of a sex crime as well as the far greater risk to life and liberty if they become a sex criminal is defenseless against their new neighbor who was just released after serving 18 months for killing a family of five in Redlands, her FOURTH DWI conviction. She likes to have just 3-4 drinks after work and drive home. The parents of that child has no easy access to information to protect their child and keep her off the street when that drunk driving murderer is headed home from her job. If you have never picked up the literal pieces of a child splattered all over the road from a drunk driving accident, then I am sure you consider an orgasm far worse that death by crushing and loss of limb.

    How is that “equal protection under the law?”

    You either register everyone and place them all on a website or no one. The current method is only fostering a feeling of alienation and hatred and that is slowly seething and burning into the souls of the children of sex offenders who suffer under these laws. when they grow up….. BOOM….. but you should have thought of that before you passed all these laws because my empathy tank is empty.

    • Timmr

      How about registering all people convicted of felonies and include them all in a tiered system according to that criminal type’s offense rate. All former sex offenders would therefore be placed on the lowest tier because of the lowest but one re-offense rate. That may also be uninformed and ineffective, but it would be a hell of a lot more fair and rational. Hey, wouldn’t you want to know if that neighbor had three DUI’s before you ask him to drive your kids to school?

  6. Simon, Psy.D

    The BIG problem I see with a “tiered registry” is its perpetuation that the Static-99R actuarial is accurate. On the contrary! The Static-99R is inaccurate junk science. By CA SOMB’s own figures, the Static-99R is about 29 percent accurate in flagging so-called “high risk” offenders (i.e. it is more [b]inaccurate[/b] than accurate). By the Static 99 scam artist developer’s own findings, Static-99R “risk factors” are useless after 10 years a person has lived offense free in the community. Hanson et al., “High Risk Sex Offenders May Not Be High Risk Forever” (2013). So people, who have remained offense free, will be made to register 20 years to lifetime (as opposed to 10 years) because of an “actuarial” proved more inaccurate up to 10 years? There is no logic to this. Why would CA SOMB continue to peddle junk science that many [b]true and credible[/b] mental health professionals and statisticians know to be hogwash? The Static-99R is a scam!

    • Jonah

      Everyone knows the Static-99 and Static-99R tests are not accurate. Why a tiered registry would rely so much on it is beyond me. I have a 6 score, which would still require lifetime registration under a tiered registry. This is for a voyeurism charge in 2008 (when I was 25 years old). I was given probation, 30 days in county jail, expunged per 1203.4. Never in trouble before and since. Static-99R indeed a big scam, designed by pseudo-psychologists (Hanson, Thornton, et al.).

      How does CASOMB get away with selling this scam?!

    • sadandmad

      In my “sex offender treatment” class, I asked why the static score never changes. I had reasoned that if in prison they asked me if I was married and if I had kids and the answer was no but now I do, that having those would lower my risk since not having them raised my risk.

      I got an “I don’t know”

  7. American Detained in America

    Here’s my favorite part….when Tobin acknowledges the registry destroys people’s lives….“Less important to some people, but not to be sneezed at, is why continue to destroy these people’s lives? There is no point and no benefits.”

    • David Kennerly

      It’s even more ironic than that. When I spoke of the injustice of the registration laws in his “group therapy” struggle sessions some twenty-five years ago at “The Center For Special Problems” in San Francisco, Tom Tobin insisted that the Registry was an essential and legitimate effort by the state to protect children and, by the way, we had nothing coming, anyway as we were undeserving of any respect and should be damned grateful for what little freedom we enjoyed.

      I spoke of what was undoubtedly coming and the police state then taking shape (and which has come to pass) and he dismissed my concerns out-of-hand with as much contempt as he could muster.

      As I mentioned before, he subsequently threw me out of the group for this, and other statements I made.

      Now, to add to the irony, he is on the more liberal side of the sex offender police state not because he has shifted all that much but because the people who run it have gotten that much worse.

      We owe Tom Tobin, and his like, very little gratitude.

      When he starts to take more public stands, and more forcefully, against the Registry then maybe I would be willing to think more highly of him.

      • G12

        Who cares whether the guy deserves our gratitude or not? I can not care less what his stance was or is compared to others so long as he’s promoting something to my benefit and many others’. Anyone promoting a tiered registry such as what’s mentioned in the article, gets my vote. I’d be released from registering if this was put in place.

        • David Kennerly

          They should call it the “Take that, you violent predators!” law.

        • Timmr

          I can’t see any therapist in his right mind advocating to keep a lifetime registry. The therapists have us for five years or so and their mission is to see we don’t re-offend. If they say after all that, that we have to be under a punishment regime for the rest of our lives, it sort of looks like they would be saying they have not done their jobs. That would truly be ironic.

        • kelnothiding

          so under the bus everyone else go’s ! dang I am happy for those that get off because of low risk and all, I truly am , but the good ole Doc sucks with his two faced way of doing things , if he was wrong about the RSO back 25 years ago , how can he just change up a little and say that any of it is worth the paper its is written on? so why should any of us be cast under a bus? the ole Doc could not be trusted years ago , I still don’t trust this fool

        • G12

          How would a tiered system throw everyone else under the bus? From my view, we’re All under the bus already. A tiered system would help some of us out from under it. Are you of the belief that all RSO’s should be treated the same, despite their level of offenses? I, for one, believe that not all crimes are equal and therefore should not carry equal punishment. I’m not in favor of a registry for anyone, but at the same time, if one were to be created, I would support it. Based on comments I’ve read on this site, there are some who are against it simply because they wouldn’t benefit from it…and would rather everyone continue to suffer opposed to just some.

        • Joe

          I imagine the concern is that those people who do not manage to get off the registry after a reasonable amount of time – and keep in mind that the devil is in the details and there is no proposal regarding offenses assigned to tiers as of yet – will not only continue to suffer, they will be viewed and treated as much more dangerously and as a greater threat than before. When they have done absolutely nothing to warrant such a change in treatment and perception.

          Some people getting relief instead of all collectively suffering is a great concept. Unless you are the one left behind. I respectfully venture that you are confident that you will be one of the lucky ones. I can see both sides.

          And if you support the registry for some it should be pointed out that the public supports the registry for all currently on it. Again, I respectfully venture that that includes you.

          Maybe the only way to slay this beast is to have it become so large that it is crushes itself.

          “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” Abraham Lincoln

        • James

          At some level I agree with Joe, who very nicely defined the argument. I’d like to see some people off the list….because I’d just be happy for them.

          But the best outcome really is that the whole system crashes.

          They are just getting crazier and crazier on this…almost a mania to punish, to label, to visually mark and continually hurt…

          Us.

          The more of us there is, the easier this will be to change.

          I think.

          I hope.

          Best Wishes, James

        • G12

          I’m sorry…I didn’t word my response correctly. I don’t support a registry, at all. I meant to say I would support a tiered system. If they aren’t doing away with the registry then that would be the next best thing, considering most states are already doing so.

          I completely understand someone not wanting to watch others drop off the list while they, themselves, are left stuck on it. However,I’m having a difficult time understanding why someone would think that someone with a lesser crime should suffer the same consequences as someone with a more severe crime. It’s basically like saying, “sorry, if I have to continue suffering then you should too.”

        • kelnothinding

          oh yes the good ole tear system , you must be talking about this new tiered system,for RSO’s , well back when I got my time there has a tear system , and it was set up that if you was on the ole bottem tear , you did more time more paper , already did my time and then some ,and still being punished for a plea Bargen” like I was even looking at a real trial! just like many other SO’s that buckled under the presser , you say that we are all under the bus , true if you think your under the bus, how is it right that people that cot there time 30+ years before being placed on this REG? how is it that many others in the same darn boat are just trying to stay afloat and try to fight for everyone elses rights just to end up thrown over board? the REG is unjust for all , not just for people that pee on walls , or internet porn, you see its like this you make deal with court , go do time and paper , because that was the deal , the deal was not well” if we feel like adding more punishment latter we will! there is this thing called a constition , oh well if anyone gets off this REG I am happy for them , just don’t forget all the others that helped in your right to being treated justly ,because we are still under the bus

        • Timmr

          I think the more correct statement would be that the registry throws the Constitution under the bus, one reason is because it does apply to one group of convicted people and not all equally. It is a subjective decision already and in order to be fair you would have to decide whether the Registry is for further punishment(public’s feelings of retribution and revenge, question being how that helps anyone) or is it for public safety (rehabilitation, risk abatement, question being how do you have a verifiable way of measuring risk and what risk even looks like). The two are not the same.

      • Timmr

        It may be ironic but consistent with the sex offender program. I’ve seen therapists take on the role of defender/advocate as well as prosecutor/jailer as their operating procedure, placing themselves in a position of absolute emotional authority over the mood of the group. That way you become dependent on them and therewith more amenable to them molding your behavior. I have seen fellow “patients” like you who see through this and question it. Not a good idea to speak up in this situation. You are made an example of for exhibiting bad behavior, that is, thinking for yourself, and lend yourself as valuable tool for the therapist.

        • David Kennerly

          Well, it got me out of the group, didn’t it? I realize now, in many cases, that might also result in a parole violation but back then it didn’t seem to be the case. I was, after all, willing to go to the group. It was they that didn’t want me.

        • Timmr

          It is a shame they didn’t allow discussions of the growing police state, especially 25 years ago before all the hysteria hit the fan.

  8. Terry

    I was busted for viewing sexually explicit minors on my computer 5 years ago. Got 60 days in work release, 240 hours of community service, one year probation and concurrently, one year of counselling. In group, mine was one of the tier one lesser offenses.
    While the therapist was approved by the state of Washington, and obligated to report issues of non-compliance by anyone in the group, I truly believe his main goal was to help us adjust our thinking about our behaviors, and if not “cure” us, at least teach us coping skills, and avoidance of circumstances that landed us in trouble in the first place. He did not allow discussion about the “fairness” of our punishment, the law, politics, or anything like that. Pointless and counterproductive. He wanted to see behavioral change, not complaints and excuses for our lot in life. Probably like AA or something.
    I’m sure he would not agree with life long punishments and the SOR, but that wasn’t his role. But then I do believe Washington State is a little more lenient than what I read from others on these threads.
    Just two days away…Go get ’em Janice!

  9. USA

    Well, I’m not sure what to say. I’ve almost been registering for 20 years now (Battery/reduced to a misdemeanor/expunged/summary probation). As such, I’ve never been arrested prior or after. So, to register now and by law never been convicted of an offense is terrible. I support the Tiered System and I personally believe that if its introduced in both a professional and well thought out manner, it will pass. Best of luck

  10. L.L.B.

    Well the Static 99R perversely treats non-violent offenses worse by giving them “1” point, whereas violent offenses get “0” points. It makes no sense the legislature would put so much weight on the Static test when it would mean a disproportionate amount of non-violent offenders would be required to register for life — whereas violent offenders would be spared the one point that could mean the difference between life -or- 10 or 20 year registration. Where is the logic in relying on a statistic modeled on mostly violent offenders, applied to non-violent offenders, in which non-violence is treated with greater severity? Bogus!

    • Timmr

      Well there you go. The most violent offenders, murder the most violent, have the least re-offense rate. Of coarse this is lumping by group, and the “group” can be defined in many different ways, no one has found cause and effect for each individual case. What is risk anyway? Does a one in a million chance of being murdered count less than a one in a hundred chance of being flashed?
      In the long run this country will have to learn over again what the founders learned through long history. You just can’t rationally punish someone for what they might do. You’re almost always going to get it wrong.
      Sorry Utopians, you have a long way to go to be able to predict human nature.

      • kelnothiding

        Timmer ,,your right , besides that they have been getting away with this crap for a long time , I never did anything violent to anyone , at least not anything that had any thing to to with sex , I have had to protect myself before , clean time , is clean time , no one belongs on this crap , how are someone else’s family more impotant than ours , there is case after case of RSO’s being killed and familys being thretend by these stalkers of RSO’s , if the cops know were I am it helps nothing as well . not all cops can be trusted with that info,, but its better than every fool that lives on your block, looks like a lot of us will end up cast under a bus

  11. Two States East

    To: Terry. Re: Your therapy in Washington State. Mine was at Center for Behavioral Intervention in Beaverton, Oregon in the late 1980’s. I had same experience as you describe. They give a sort of a menu of things, and you take what works for you. For me, I got divorced at the beginning, so as a single guy the emphasis was learning proper dating and nurturing relationships with women. Along with this was to only date women with no children. If I were to be heading to a committed relationship, after divulging to her my crime and therapy program, to bring her to the program for at least an hour with the counsellors. In my program, it was run by a husband/wife team. This place is still going strong.

    However, my years in therapy were before registration, and years before notification. Now, therapy must be much more more challenging. Future hope is diminished greatly.

    If you are still living in Washington State, and are registered level one, then you are not under notification. Then you must also be aware of the not yet given State Supreme Court decision involving Donna Zink concerning level one notification. Depending on their decision there will be challenges.

    Lastly, you have a friend, Brad Meryhew, an Attorney in Seattle whose clientele are exclusively sex offender cases. And he also happens to to be on Washington’s Sex Offender Policy Board. He fights for us in Washington State.

  12. Terry

    Thank you, East! If you don’t mind, what does “not under notification mean”? Not aware of Zink but I’ll look it up. Don’t need an attorney just yet, but if I do, I’ll call Brad. My attorney 5 years ago was a clown, who was merely in attendance! I read up, and think I knew more about things than he did!
    You in WA or still in OR? Two States East wouldn’t be either!
    Tomorrow is the day!!! Go Janice!
    I think the all inclusive, overly broad application of “sex offender” without regard to the crime committed, the recidivism rates, length of time since conviction, overall record, age of offender, etc. will be the argument to win the case. On the other hand, all the Japanese got interred, minorities are regularly singled out for punishment, so what do I know! People like things easily explained and generalized, without a lot of nuance…but judges are supposed to protect the people from stupid simpletons like politicians who make crappy laws. We’ll see!

  13. Two States East

    To: Terry. I’m in New Mexico. This place is “two States east” of California. I do correspond with Brad. Goggle their SOPB, and read their minutes for each meeting. Go back as many years as you like. Brad has been on the Board since it started in 2008. Also, go to Brad Meryhew’s website. Ask about notification.

    Washington has no advocacy organization (yet). Someday…..an RSOL chapter ? Hmmm…

  14. Patel

    So if the Static 99R cannot be used after 10 years one is offense free in the community, why require 20 years or lifetime registration under a tiered registry? Why does a tiered registry imply one is likely to commit a sex crime 20 plus years into the future when the tiered registry is based on alleged statistical science only to be applied a maximum of 10 after one has remained offense free in the community. Makes no sense to have lifetime and 20 year registration period for someone 10 years offense free.

  15. Timmr

    The Supreme court has a little secret, which no normal person sees as any secret, the registry is meant to punish the former offender. That is why even with proposals based on so called science, they have to make it more that a little unbearable still. Why does the CASOMB call for 25 years at level II, when at any level the probability of committing a sex crime after 17 years offense free is the same as the general public’s ? It is to sate the appetite of the politicians to punish beyond any reason and maybe it will make them act a little less stupidly.

    • Timmr

      “The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.” -Albert Einstein
      When it comes to sex offender laws, stupidity tends to win out against even the most minimal thoughtfulness.
      Why would decision makers not want to focus resources on the more dangerous and let the others lead productive lives? I don’t know of any other issue that celebrates stupidity so.

  16. Quang Pham

    Patel and Timmr, the tiered proposal is a fictitious tiered registry. Also, the 17 years cited by Karl Hanson is based on the Static 99 scam. So 17 years is probably an overstatement (as the Static 99R figures seem over-inflated, exaggerated, and unstable in replication). The Static 99R hardliners will do anything to push their scheme, perhaps with inconvenient fear that beneath the seemingly scientific Static 99R pile of numbers lie a bottomoless pit into the abyss of junk science. Most psychologists hate being proved wrong.

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 *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.