In the early 1980s, rehabilitation counselor Robert Longo could hardly have known that his work with convicted sex offenders would make him a minor celebrity. At the time, he was running a program at the Oregon State Hospital to treat and rehabilitate prisoners who had committed sex crimes. It was a new field, and Longo says they were using what at the time were considered innovative approaches: aversive conditioning, administration of Depo-Provera to reduce testosterone levels, and penile plethysmography to measure arousal. Full Article
Related posts
-
Senators call for audit of TSA’s facial recognition tech as use expands in airports | The Record from Recorded Future News
Source: therecord.media 11/22/24 A bipartisan group of 12 senators on Wednesday sent the Department of Homeland... -
-
SORNA Case Advances in Federal Court; PLF Files Motion for Summary Judgment
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a motion for summary judgment on November 18 in its...
this is a key statement
Trying to get legislatures to fix these things is almost hopeless,” he says. “But trying to get courts to fix them is less hopeless because courts have to provide a rational, reasoned explanation of their decisions.”
From the horse’s mouth, however, what is he really doing about the lie, except make more money on it, because of the work he is in?
One thing about attending CA RSOL meetings is you get the opportunity to meet some of the people on the front lines, fighting the fight… and ask them point blank, the questions we all blog about, and the articles we read… Specifically, I had the opportunity to actually meet and talk with Ira Ellman at the May 14, 2016 Berkeley CA RSOL meeting. What he says in this article is what he shared with me, but I had the chance to “hear” his words.
“But if the Supreme Court was wrong, there are no easy remedies. Ellman thinks a raft of new lawsuits attacking the worst elements of registries could build a foundation for a case that eventually overturns the 2003 decision. ‘Trying to get legislatures to fix these things is almost hopeless,’ he says. ‘But trying to get courts to fix them is less hopeless because courts have to provide a rational, reasoned explanation of their decisions.’”
While the article paints a gloom and doom picture, Ira remains optimistic… so much so that his is looking for plaintiffs to attack the “worst elements of registries”, which in turn “could build a foundation for a case that eventually overturns the 2003 decision”. With people like Ira preparing to do battle in the courts, and people like Janice taking the fight to the state legislators, and all of us “PUSHING BACK”, sooner or later a “Tipping Point” will occur and the pendulum will slowly begin to swing in the opposite direction. Just as when I was incarcerated for well over two decades, I held the position… the philosophy that “they” may have my body, but I refuse to give them my mind and my soul! I am encouraged by what is coming to light everyday… no matter how small or insignificant it may seem, or how high the mountain may be.
The very casual acceptance of being able to apply new laws to someone who had completed the mandated sentence, simply for belonging to a group with a certain recidivism rate, whether it is high or low, is objectionable in itself. I can see using recidivism rates for gauging the effectiveness of certain treatment options, social programs, or for assessing the effectiveness of punishments as a deterrent, but where does it say in the Constitution that the right to not be subject to more government actions restricting your freedoms is waived because of some statistics of the group you are classed with? With what other crime type does that apply?
Not mentioned yet in any of this is one factor affecting measured rates: the steady growth in the number of crimes deemed sexual.
there is supposed to be a nexus between a crime and the regulation restriction or prohibition then it is supposed to be as narrowly tailored to be the least infringement on the constitutional rights. these laws also have to be rational and effective and not just arbitrarily applied in a blanket fashion.these laws and all the others such as a blanket application of no firearms and the application of the IML are all unreasonable,arbitrary,and oppressive official actions and god I hope someone challenges these laws on that issue. just thinkbthe CA supreme Court ruled unanimously that residency restrictions were unconstitutional and the same argument holds true for the entire registration scheme. the court would basically have to overrule that unanimous decision in order to justify and rule in favor of the registration scheme.it’s a no brainer and the court gave us the a silver bullet in that decision if only someone who has the resources and intelligence would use it.
Dream big or go home. We have a big problem that’s based on a little bit of truth wrapped in a giant vat of BS. To get rid of the BS, we first have to imagine a way to drain it away.
I think that instead of us trying to prove to SCOTUS that their original decision (that the registry is not ex post facto punishment) in Smith v. Doe was wrong, we instead need to show SCOTUS that the registry has now changed so much since those decisions that it should “now” be considered punishment. Getting them to admit they were wrong in Smith v. Doe is not going to happen (even if we prove the evidence given to them at the time was faulty). We need to be able to show SCOTUS how the public internet disclosure now causes all registered citizens many types of harms including the high risk of vigilantes using the public disclosure to cause physical injury and death.
The largest problem when dealing with this issue is legal jargon and opportunistic politicians.
Judges will use legal definitions set by past precedent to help define a word in current context. Take for example the first ruling that the registry and its laws cannot be defined as punishment.
This has opened the floodgates for opportunistic politicians to pass any and all enhancements to it because it has already been defined.
What really needs to take place is a reassessment of the definition of the registry as punishment or not using the current scope of the law, not relying on what the registry looked like when it was originally ruled as not punishment.
The bottom line is this: The registry today is so different than what it was when originally ruled as non-punishment that the original definition no longer accurately represents the topic.
Time to Nunc Pro Tunc SCOTUS! http://texaslawhelp.org/resource/correcting-a-clerical-mistake-in-a-judgment-n
As long as there is a separate standard for a subclass of offender, the courts and the legislatures will not significantly change their position. Period.
Until the entire picture is presented and attention is given to the risk non-sex related convicts pose to individuals and the danger to society regarding potential for victimizing sexually, there will be no significant change in laws.
The way it is, there are too many opportunities for people to make a political name for themselves and for them to perpetuate hate toward the lessor risk offender and to be applauded for it. That’s just the way it is.
Take on the task of presenting the bigger risk to individuals and you might get the attention of those making the decisions and passing the laws.
Of course, that’s just my opinion.
I swear the longer I fall under these laws the more I am starting to hate the country I live in. (This is coming from someone who actually served in the military). I’m listed as a Tier III registrant where I’ve always made sure to do everything on time. Since release from prison, I was never placed on any time of probation or parole. I went to school and received a Bachelors degree in Computer Science and was forced to leave the state I was living in because that state (Indiana) actually has a map that has a picture above the job where you work! Needless to say people looking at the map call the businesses to complain and then the person is fired (Indiana is an “at will” state). I am also married now and have 5 children (step and biological) for whom I work hard everyday in my new state at a fairly decent job, though I always wonder if the next day I will go to work only to be let go because of being on the registry. The biggest insult is due to being a tier III registrant, theres no way to lower the tier or even get off. I’ve been out for 10 years now and have done nothing but good things yet somehow I’m still a very dangerous person?! If I knew of a country in Europe that I had a chance of working in, my wife and I would quickly move our family out of this hateful country.
Registry laws must meet the ‘compelling government interest’ test. They’ve been passed on that basis, but never challenged as to how they meet the criteria.
.Supreme Court has identified the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worthy of protection by strict scrutiny.
If strict scrutiny was applied to ‘registry laws’ they should fail because there are no statistics to back them up; and in fact, actual statistics will show extremely low recidivism rates.
Registry laws are clear Bill of Attainder since they are not applied to other ‘classes’ of criminals.
Freedom to travel was a right specifically protected in the Articles of Confederation which is STILL considered part of US law. ( Organic laws of the United States ) It was left out of the Constitution because it was considered an inalienable right.
Ex Post Facto laws were NOT strictly only designed for criminal law, but were considered to also apply to civil law. (Federalist Papers 44, & 84) Calder v. Bull did NOT expressly allow ex post facto to apply ONLY to criminal cases.