ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

General News

NV: Sex offender list case off Las Vegas court docket

LAS VEGAS (AP) – A state court in Las Vegas won’t hear arguments about a sex offender registry until the Nevada Supreme Court considers constitutional questions raised by lawyers representing 17 unnamed plaintiffs.

Court officials said Monday the Tuesday hearing in Clark County District Court was canceled. Full Article

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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Plaintiffs’ lawyers argue the listing represents double-jeopardy punishment, treats offenders unevenly, unfairly reclassifies people, and there’s no method to correct errors. ”

man looks like another incompetent lawyers barely touching on the equal protection clause and the unfairly classification technicality. more bad precedents for our cause. hate to be pessimistic but I am a realist. if only janice and chance and team would bring a real case using frank as the plaintiff than we could begin to apply that undeniably winning case for our cause. I know janice and her team are competent enough to succeed I just don’t understand why they don’t. right to reputation right to travel right to equal protection right to be free from unreasonable arbitrary oppressive official actions right to travel and association although there are many more issues those are all fundamental rights and requires due process and proof with clear and convincing evidence of the eminent threat to public safety someone poses. it’s a slam dunk I only wish I had the funds to pay a attorney but you know what they say about wishing in one hand.

Mike r-

In Nevada, Alina Shell and Maggie McLechie are among the top Civil Liberty and Civil Rights defenders in the State. They are on our side. I have a great deal of confidence in them that they are doing everything they can for our cause.

It’s not easy to find legal minds who believe in us and go to battle for us.

They are big on constitutional rights and freedoms.

Nevada is a different animal. It’s quite a conservative state for the most part…with a conservative Governor. Thankfully, we have some hope… one of our State Senators will be working on several of the issues on our behalf in February when the lawmakers go back in session.

California is a very Liberal State. And look at all of the battles that go on in that State. The handwriting was on the wall for me, and in 2002 I got out of Calif.

Seems as though Nevada is trying to out-do Calif. with AWA.

We need to do everything we can to work with the good people like Janice, Alina and Maggie.

Between you and me, until the US Supreme Court finds registration “Punitive” and tosses all registration out the window, it’s going to be an ongoing battle around every corner.


I can’t tell. I’ve contacted Shell trying to get on the list so I could get off of the SOR, and she wouldn’t help me. I’ve even had a lawyer tell me yes they are violating my constitutional rights, but I can’t do anything and that I have to sit back and take it. I’ve been away from Las Vegas, NV since 2004, and they still have me on their SOR. However the state that I was convicted in had given me the paperwork showing that I’ve been off of the SOR since 2008.

Where did you go to avoid California laws?

Mike R, this case involves the Nevada state law that is complying with Megan’s Law. That is why the hearing is before the Nevada Supreme Court. I’m not an attorney, but it seems that a positive results from this state case would be foundational for a Federal challenge later. Maybe someone else could confirm this.

concerned registrant:
I’ll try to explain what I know. And I am learning myself.

On July 1, 2016 Nevada AB 579 was to go into full effect.
That was Nevada’s version of the Adam Walsh Act to be fully compliant with the Feds.
That way Nevada would receive Federal funds for law enforcement, by changing the Megans Law model to the
Adam Walsh Act.

17 Nevada registered citizens filed suit to attempt to block the implementation of Assembly Bill 579. It’s been in the court system for nearly 10 years now.

One of the main concerns is it would reclassify some RC’s from Nevada’s current tier system from low risk to the tier 3 category. Many of these retroactive changes would make it impossible to ever be considered a chance to be removed from the Nevada SO registry. Also many who were not subject to community notification will now have all information posted. It’s so punitive it stinks badly of being unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs filed a last hour writ with the Nevada Supreme Court and again the New law has been placed on hold until further review by the Court.

Initially, the July 12 court date was in one of our lower courts.
So, the battle continues and the July 12 court date was cancelled due to precedent moving the litigation to the Nevada Supreme Court.

I don’t know when we will hear more about this…and please forgive me if my explanation is not accurate or does not detail the issues fully…I’m learning as I go too.

This AWA tier system can be wonderful for some and it can really kick some of us in the teeth. So those in CA. looking for a tier system, be careful.


I really hope that the Nevada Supreme Court takes a good long look at this law. It really is a double jeopardy situation and unfairly punishes people who have served their time, and also places unfair stigma on their families. This really classification forces a blanket judgment. Not fair, especially for misdemeanor offenses . I hope and pray for fairness, not fear.

I really hope these attorneys are competent as you suggest because what we don’t need is more bad precedents
it seems that other than the bani vs Hawaii case Janice’s team have been the only successful attorneys in the country. thank God for her efforts and competence.

Maggie and partners have managed to prevent AWA from being implemented for 9 years. She is a miracle – worker and godsend to all RSO in NV. The plaintiffs in this case are some great ones (not the usual Boogeyman vs State) that have established the precedents that speak for all of us “as a class.” This case has already been lost, repeatedly, but they keep finding new avenues to attack the law and the state’s enforcement of it.
There is less to fear, by way of precedent, in this case as there is to fear if the law is implemented!

How do we contact WAR?

Click the contact us link and you will be directed to a form that you can submit.
You will also find phone contact numbers on the Contact Us page.


One of the plaintiffs is 74…convicted of indecent exposure when he was 19 (55 years ago). Others were released from the registry by a judge, but then put back on. There are good plaintiffs and compelling, original, arguments in this case; ones that may finally get us some points on the board instead of another fail mary.

I was sentenced in Cleveland, Ohio for Corruption Of A Minor in 1996. I was made a Sex Offender once I was released as a low oriented offender and made to report for a total of 10 years. My registration to report was up October of 2008. I moved to Las Vegas from 2002-2004 and haven’t been back to the state, but they still have me on their website as a sex offender. The Ohio Supreme Court has already ruled that making the AWA retroactive is unconstitutional. Since I haven’t been back to Las Vegas since 2004 I shouldn’t be on the registry. I always carry the paperwork from the Ohio Sheriffs Department showing that my time as a sex offender is up. I’m going to call these attorneys tomorrow to see if I can become the 18th plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Good luck! I’m rooting for you!

so BOO how is that going for you ?

does anybody have a actual link to their briefs I would love to read them before I can really make informed comments about it.

this statement is really disturbing
This case has already been lost, repeatedly, but they keep finding new avenues to attack the law and the state’s enforcement of it.

Mike R. It is a fact that the case was lost already – decided in 2012 at 9th Circuit Court. The ACLU in Nevada has been continuing the fight. For reference, here is the link to ACLU v. Masto in Google Scholar:

and before all you haters start spitting vitriol at me for questioning the effectiveness of their strategies you need to to go to back to college and learn how to debate issues and come up with solutions through constructive criticism and collaboration with people who have different ideas or points of view….I can’t comment on their case or make any call without reading and digesting the actual facts and briefs.but the fact that they have repeatedly lost is troubling

Hi Mike. Hope I didn’t offend you here, just hoping to shed some light from someone who had actually read the brief that was filed with the SCONV that approved the last minute (actually 4 hours too late) injunction. I have it in PDF, but no link to give you.
It is disturbing that their cases have been repeatedly lost, but they are effective at keeping the law from being implemented, which is as close to a win as we can really expect. There’s a very small handfull of lawyers who even care to fight for this cause, and a terrible track record for those that do. First it was upheld by the 9th Circuit. Then it has been challenged for juveniles and in general with the SCONV…the fact that there are new grounds for challenging it, and grounds that the same supreme court that keeps upholding it keeps finding valid enough reasons to keep staying it each time, should indicate that they are doing something right though.
Not sure who the haters are here, but I love McLetchie and Shell.

Mike R,

Seriously get off your high horse. Maybe you should heed some of your own advice and provide constructive opinions and not uninformed inflammatory comments. It seems to me that you are the one who lacks debating skills as you are very sensitive to other peoples opinions. Great that you’re attending college and that you have passion for something but the take away i get from reading your comments is this “ A fool with knowledge is more dangerous then a fool without knowledge”.

“man looks like another incompetent lawyers barely touching on the equal protection clause and the unfairly classification technicality”
You make this statement without any knowledge of who these lawyers are and what they have done. Maybe you should do some research before you constantly stick your foot in your mouth.
You make everything sound so simple, what you do not seam to realize is no matter how valid an argument we use, it does not mean the judge will interpret it that way. I would love to hear you chime in on the call-ins with lawyers at national RSOL and here what they have to say about your brilliant, fool proof arguments of the equal protection clause. You seem to think you know something know one else does. Remember many of these groups started out with no funds available to them so why don’t you start your own group, raise money and then hire a lawyer so you can tell that lawyer how to be successful according to the world of Mike R.
Or call Janice and tell her the secret to getting the supreme court to say “ Oops we made a mistake, we will change this very popular law, no problem” Your constant complaining does nothing without action. Once you start doing something then go ahead and complain.


If you live in Nevada, please contact WAR. we are organizing and planning and would be great to have you on board.

Les Mis Life,

I will assume you are referring to “Women Against Registry”?

I did not find anything specific to Nevada…and yes I live in Nevada.

Is this where I should go for contact, and in what form do you feel that I may be of help? Is there anyone specifically I should address?


We’re close to getting a site specific for NV. if you put your info in the ‘contact us’ section, they’ll call and email to let you know. I got involved about a month and a half ago, and it’s grown in leaps and bounds. We’re trying to get other RSOS and family members aware and do something together instead of being divided and rolled over.
We’re working on contacting legislators/judiciary committee members before their election and again in February when the next session starts. We have members that have lobbied and are educating as well. Hope I’m not over-selling it, but I find it to be a great time to collaborate for a solution instead of cringing in silence. We have updates on the status of challenges as well as plans to give the movement some long overdue momentum in Nevada. Hope to talk to you on Sunday or Tuesday on the call!

Les Mis Life,
Was out of town visiting relatives in CA. over the weekend. Will get over and fill in contact info.



Les Mis Life this site does not open for me

How do we contact WAR?

yep there’s one of the haters and thank you les mis life for your respectful and informative post. rob your personal attacks on my intellect or character is going to have no effect on me. I will be the bigger man and continue to post whatever comments I wish. I will no longer respond to ignorant people on this site who wish to attack on a personal level and are not responding on the topics being discussed …..les mis if you have a copy of the briefings in pdf maybe you can email it to me or to rsol and they can figure out how to post a link to it.

Mike R…

concerning personal attacks, you did type the following:

““man looks like another incompetent lawyers barely touching on the equal protection clause and the unfairly classification technicality””

You can easily omit “incompetent” and still get your point across. I think that’s what some are quite offended with, but you are oblivious to acknowledge. Your recent actions contradicts your principles.

Argue the content, not the people. It’s great to have many POVs.

Mike r,
I have read many of your comments and many have been disrespectful. I think you need to go back and look at comments you have made. You seem to think that everyone is “attacking you” when in fact they are just responding to your negativity. If you want respect, then you should start respecting other individuals and group efforts. When you show others respect, then you’ll have everyone else’s. I would also suggest to stop using the word “Hater” as it sounds juvenile. You are entitled to criticize others but there are other ways to do it.
I applaud your enthusiasm and efforts to educate yourself and to try and organize a case to be brought against the registry. I have read your information you have posted. I look forward to reading what you post, especially as you organize your case and thoughts into a more concise manner.
I’m also on the registry and since then I have earned my Bachelors degree and will be entering Graduate school this semester. I don’t pretend to be more intelligent then someone else who hasn’t been to college, being humble is a good trait to have.

I will continue to work on my own motion and will continue to contact and attempt to convince someone that the issues are ripe and to assist me or bring suit themselves and that there is a high probability that a as applied challenge can win especially with the right plaintiff’s like Frank Lindsey that have been a perfect citizen for over 30 years . once that happens it will open the door for a much broader range of individuals.

and here’s another great idea I’m looking into which someone touched on in a previous post somewhere on here and it’s about keeping your name and your page from being the first thing that pops up when someone googles or bings or whatevers your name address or zip code. each one of us creates about 10 different email accounts and create free websites for each of those emails and put your name and homefacts in the domain name including your addresses somewhere on the page and can even go as far as incorporating the words sex and offender in your pages and then post links to all those sites in a single post on here and convince everyone who visits this site to open each one of these links which would send any homefacts page way way down on the search engines. people would have to really search to find you or actually go to the Megan’s law website which most idiots and vigilante mindsets are to stupid or lazy to do. I am looking into and I’ll see how it goes. I really hope if I go through the process of creating all these websites that I can count on everyone to just click on the links then we can see how it works. right now you search my name and that homefacts page is like the first thing to come up.the least we can do is make em have to work a little to find us online.

yes les I would love to hear what is happening with the class action that was supposed to be filed last fall by war. any info on that would be great. I have to comment on rob I’ll try to keep it professional rob maybe you need to stand back and read your own post. your comments are very similar to exactly the type of oppression we are trying to overcome. according to your way of thinking if someone doesn’t act or do something or say what you want to hear or that fits your ideology then they don’t have a RIGHT to comment or complain. who are you and what gives you the power to tell anyone what rights they should have. you actually have no idea who I am what organizations I am affiliated with what type of support I have actually contributed to our cause or how many people I educate and collaborate with about the true facts and empirical evidence ex-offenders and the registry.

Mike it’s not about being “professional” in your comments. It’s about tact. Something you’ll need to learn when you are arguing in front of a judge.

“diplomacy, tactfulness, sensitivity, understanding, thoughtfulness, consideration, delicacy, discretion, prudence, judiciousness, subtlety, savoir faire”

I don’t see any way on this forum of posting a pdf of the complaint as requested. Here is a link that hopefully you can access though.

One of the challenges we are dealing with here in Nevada is the judiciary both on the district level, as well as the state supreme court has a conservative Republican lean.

Just in response to Mike’s comments above. Speaking as one who is a part of the suit, as well as someone assisting with legal research on this case, the arguments raised are very well thought out. I have sat in the courtroom, and can tell you first hand that no matter how valid your arguments may be, at the end of the day, you are still at the mercy of judicial selection and whims.

It can be frustrating at times to raise multiple valid points, but at the end of the day much of the argument turns on whether the court views the issue of the registry as a criminal matter, or a regulatory one.

There is no easy and quick judicial consensus on this around the country as has been proved time and time again. While the facts often seem crystal clear to people such as you and I, many judges have their own set beliefs, prejudices, and agendas. In a pure bubble it would be great if every judge decided every case on strictly the facts at hand, but in the real world we all know, or should know that is not the case however.


sorry if this posted twice but it didnt seem to post the first time…
data I’m sure these lawyers probably have all this information and data but here is a enormous amount of valuable information for them or anyone else who wishes to use it to fight or inform people…if anyone has contact with these attorneys please pass this along it can’t hurt..thanks

The United States Supreme Court has previously recognized that a person’s reputation is a protected liberty interest under the federal due process clause. Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971) (hereafter “Constantineau”); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (hereafter “Roth”).

In Constantineau, the State of Wisconsin authorized the posting of a notice prohibiting the sale or gift of liquor to any person who “‘by excessive drinking’ produces described conditions or exhibits specified traits, such as exposing himself or family ‘to want’ or becoming ‘dangerous to the peace’ of the community.” On appeal, the Constantineau Court recognized that “[i]t would be naive not to recognize that such ‘posting’ or characterization of an individual will expose him to public embarrassment and ridicule.” 400 U.S. at 436. The Court therefore held that a protectible liberty interest is implicated “[w]here a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him [or her.]” Id. at 437.

One year later, the Court again recognized a person’s liberty interest may be implicated by damage to his or her reputation. See Roth, 408 U.S. at 573. The plaintiff in Roth, a university professor, alleged that “the failure of University officials to give him notice of any reason for non-retention and an opportunity for a hearing violated his right to procedural due process of law.” Id. at 569. The Roth Court reasoned that in declining to hire the plaintiff, the state had neither advanced “any charge against him that might seriously damage his standing and associations in the community” nor “imposed on him a stigma or other disability that foreclosed his freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities.” Id. at 573. The Roth Court noted, however, that “a different case” would have been presented had the state either damaged the plaintiff’s reputation or imposed a stigma on him. Id. at 573-74.

However, in Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, reh’g denied, 425 U.S. 985 (1976), the Court clarified that “reputation alone, apart from some more tangible interests such as employment, is [n]either ‘liberty’ [n]or ‘property’ by itself sufficient to invoke the procedural protection of the Due Process Clause.” Id. at 701. The plaintiff in Paul alleged a deprivation of liberty without due process of law after the circulation of flyers publicizing his conviction for shoplifting and labeling him an “active shoplifter.” Id. at 712. According to the Paul Court, because the plaintiff’s harm was not accompanied by the alteration of “a right or status previously recognized by state law,” there was no deprivation of a protectible liberty interest. Id. at 711-12.

Paul has been interpreted to require “stigma plus” in order to establish a constitutional deprivation. See, e.g., Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992, 999 (2d Cir. 1994). In other words, “an allegation that government dissemination of information or government defamation has caused damage to reputation, even with all the attendant emotional anguish and social stigma, does not in itself state a cause of action for violation of a constitutional right, infringement of more ‘tangible interests’ must be alleged as well”. Borucki v. Ryan, 827 F.2d 836, 842-43 (1st Cir. 1987); see also Marshall v. University of Hawaii, 9 Haw. App. 21, 32, 821 Courts have recognized the serious harm to other “tangible interests” as a result of registration as a sex offender. Potential employers and landlords are reluctant to employ or rent to me once they learn of my status as a “sex offender”. See Pataki III, 3 F. Supp. 2d at 468; W.P. v. Poritz, 931 F. Supp. 1199, 1219 (D.N.J. 1996), rev’d, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1110 (1998) [hereinafter Verniero]; see also In re Reed, 663 P.2d 216 (Cal. 1983) (quoting In re Birch, 515 P.2d 12 (Cal. 1973)). (8).

See also for collateral damage caused by these laws.

I have a liberty interest protected by the Constitution that entitles me to procedural due process because of: (1) the public disclosure of accumulated and synthesized personal information that would not otherwise be easily available; (2) the harm to my personal and professional life; (3) the foreseeable harm to my reputation; and (4) the statutory branding of me as a public danger, i.e., as a sex offender. I note that the “interest cannot be captured in a single word or phrase. It is an interest in knowing when the government is moving against you and why it has singled you out for special attention. It is an interest in avoiding the secret machinations of a Star Chamber.” Noble, 964 P.2d at 995.

These laws do not substantially further the regulatory purpose or the legislative objectives of increasing public safety, reducing sexual abuse or preventing recidivism as evidenced in the following reports and actual facts from the leading authorities on this subject.

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.

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 re offending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual re offense 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.

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

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 ineffectiveness 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.

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.

am asking this court to apply the actual facts submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following.

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

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.

Bureau of Justice Statistics

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.

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:

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:

More state studies;
AK 03% page 8 Criminal Recidivism in Alaska Alaska Judicial Council January 2007!8635&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
AZ 05.5 % Sex Offender Recidivism Arizona dept. of corrections note bottom of page 03.3%!8633&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA 00.8% The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) “2014 Outcome Evaluation Report“
CA 05.0 % fig 12 California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation
2010 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report!8632&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA 03.5% table 3-2 California sex offender management Board January 2008!8630&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA figure 11 01.9% California sex offender management Board 2012 in looking at this one I realize that this is another attempt to increase the visual concept of a higher reoffend rate than actually exists you will note in table 11 , that there are 8490 released sex offenders and that 5870 are returned to prison or 69.1% going onto figure 11. The pie chart does not represent the 8490 but rather represents the 5870 . When you take this into account and do the math. 1.9% of 5870 comes out to 111 and 111 people involved in the new sex crime, out of 8490 comes out to an actual reoffend rate of 1.3% . This is just another way that the government is using razzle-dazzle techniques. In doing their statistical analysis.!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA 01.9 % figure 11 California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation 2012 Outcome Evaluation Report!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA 10 year study 03.3% RECIDIVISM OF PAROLED SEX OFFENDERS – A TEN (10) YEAR STUDY!8626&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CT page 9 01,7% And prisoners with no prior sex crime are six times more likely to be involved in a new sex crime Recidivism among sex offenders in Connecticut, State of Connecticut
Office of Policy and Management, Criminal Justice Policy & Planning Division, February 15, 2012
DE Table 26 03.1% REARREST 6 offenders and on table 27 3 Offenders were not found guilty of a crime that makes the percentage of people convicted of a new sex crime. 01.5% Rearrest should never be used as a determining factor. Delaware Sex Offenders, Profiles and Criminal Justice System Outcomes, January 2008!8622&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
DE 3.8% rearrest table 7 Recidivism of Delaware Adult Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 2001 July 2007!8621&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
DE 5% rearrest table 8 after 5 years Recidivism of Delaware Juvenile Sex Offenders Released in 2001 September 2007!8620&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
FL 4.2% page10 Figure 2 10 year follow up SEX OFFENDER RISK AND RECIDIVISM IN FLORIDA!8784&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IA page 7 #4 “With the overall recidivism for sex offenses as low as 2% “ Iowa Sex Offender Research Council Report to the Iowa General Assembly January 22, 2009!8618&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IA table 4 03% new sex crime THE IOWA SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY AND
RECIDIVISM Iowa Department of Human Rights Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning and Statistical Analysis Center!8617&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IA ARREST 02.3% page 7 Iowa Department of Corrections Report to the Board of Corrections
Third in a series of reports highlighting issues contributing to corrections population growth April 2006 Sex Offenders!8616&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IN bottom of page “1.05%of identified sex offender’srecidivated for a new sex crime within 3 years.” Indiana Department of Correction Recidivism Rates Decrease for 3rd Consecutive Year!8935&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

IN page 22 05.7% Recidivism Rates Compared 2005-2007 Indiana Department of CORRECTION!8936&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
ME page 12 03.8% Returned to prison for sex offense SEXUAL ASSAULT TRENDS
AND SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM IN MAINE 2010!8612&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
MI 8/10 of 1% three-year study has come out of Michigan looking at the number of people on parole that were returned to prison for new crimes they found that of the sex offenders who were released from prison and found that they were involved in the new sexually related crime at 8/10 of 1%, or in other words, that 99.2% DID NOT Reoffend in the new sex crime. And that they had the lowest reoffend rate of all the criminal classes released. the full report is here
MN 5.7 % over 12 years Table 2 page 21 Sex Offender Recidivism in Minnesota April 2007!8610&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
NY 04% profile and follow-up of sex offenders released in 1986 this one is another attempt to hide the facts . I finally found this information on page 19. They state that there were 556 offenders released below that on page 19. They show a table 14 the number of people related to each of those crimes that were returned to prison. If you look at the numbers for a new sex crime. You will see that they are 5,6,5 and 7 totaling 23 , when you do the percentages 23/556 UN that with the re-offense rate of 4% . If you look at the other graphs that they have provided they have shockingly high numbers . The problem is that they are only looking at the people that are returned to prison and ignoring the people that stayed out of prison. So their numbers are skewed because they did not include people not reoffending in their statistical data.!8607&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
OH report to the Ohio criminal sentencing commission, January 2006 sex offenders Sex offenders in Ohio have a lower recidivism rate than the recidivism rate of all offenders (38.8 percent). A 10-year follow-up of a 1989 cohort of sex offenders released from Ohio prisons found that only 8 percent of sex offenders were recommitted for a new sex offense!8604&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
OH Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommitment for a New Crime Sex Offense 8.0 % after 10 yeaars!8603&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
WA03 07% Re-offended Department of Corrections Public Safety Update What is the re-offense behavior for sex offenders under supervision in the community? •Of the 264 offenders who committed a re-offense:•83% or 218 were unemployed •73% or 192 DID NOT have stable housing
WY again I have to dig through the research to find the numbers . The end result is that between 2000 and 2005 , 545 sex offenders were released and of that 24 reoffended it in a new sex crime . That makes the reoffend charade of 04.4%
For further information and empirical evidence on recidivism rates see also,

These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

When the laws that have been passed are based on the justification of the high numbers. And they come out, in fact, be not only low, but extremely low. Lower than any other group that does not have the same restrictions or requirements. You would think that there would be a public outcry to do away with these laws but because of politicians are continuing the myth for their political gain, as well as professionals who have a fiduciary interest in the myth continuing and victims advocates, whose only real purpose is revenge. as well as Sensationalism of the news media. All these people continue the myth. Even though the hard data shows that it is a lie. What is it going to take to bring sanity back to our country and overturned laws based on lies and myths? That are in fact a springboard to passing other laws taking away constitutional rights of the American citizens

The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue,(as demonstrated in the above studies), and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts. When “particularly important” interests are involved in a civil proceeding, whether or not physical restraint is threatened, the United States Supreme Court has mandated a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof and stated that, “[n]otwithstanding ‘the state’s “civil labels and good intentions,” ‘ . . . this level of certainty [is deemed] necessary to preserve fundamental fairness in a variety of government-initiated proceedings that threaten the individual involved with ‘a significant deprivation of liberty’ or ‘stigma.’ ” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 756 (1982) (requiring clear and convincing evidence standard to support termination of parental rights), quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 426, 427 (1979) (civil commitment); Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 285 (1966) (deportation); Chaunt v. United States, 364 U.S. 350, 353 (1960) (denaturalization); Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 125, 159 (1943) (denaturalization). A registrant’s liberty interest is seriously infringed in the creation of a long-term relationship with the police, in the potential criminal sanctions overshadowing that relationship, and in the stigma of notification – all penalties that are “more substantial than mere loss of money.” Santosky, supra, quoting Addington v. Texas, supra at 424.

The court also too easily confines the State’s interest to a single dimension. While the primary purpose of the registration statute is to protect the public from sexual predators, the State also has “an interest in ensuring that its classification and notification system is both fair and accurate.” E.B. v. Verniero, supra at 1107. The State has no interest in making erroneous classifications and implementing overbroad registration and notifications. Id. See Doe v. Pataki, supra at (slip op. at 32). Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the burdens on the government are great, without any likely benefit, when it holds hearings for and maintains the registration of thousands of registrants for whom there is no clear evidence that they pose any danger to the public. Requiring the government to assemble and present clear evidence of a sex offender’s dangerousness would ensure that limited adjudicatory and police enforcement resources would be concentrated on those individuals who realistically may pose.threats to young children and other vulnerable populations. As observed in an altogether different context, but oddly apropos of this classification system as well, “when everything is classified, then nothing is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless.” New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 729 (1971) (Stewart, J., concurring)

I am still not sure if this case has been overturned if anyone knows here’s a link let me know thanks

I must note this case was before we had all that data rebuffing the need or effectiveness of the registry.

Hawaii v. Bani was decided in 2001. The US Supreme Court decided Smith v. Doe and Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe in 2003 which effectively chilled and invalidated Bani. Correct legal decisions such as Bani were quickly overcome by the thousands of bad laws that followed the 2003 SCOTUS legal precedents.

I urge anyone that has negative comments or opinions on my post or anyone that is really interested in quashing the registry to read this case in full

there is always something that can be done. a writ of certiorari is just one example.

Advertiser Staff Writer

Five months after the Hawai’i Supreme Court declared the state’s sex offender registration law unconstitutional, the Legislature approved a new bill that lawmakers say corrects the flaw in the original and restores the public’s capacity to track sexual predators.
The bill, which the governor is expected to sign into law, will allow a sex offender’s name, aliases, current address, future address, work affiliations, vehicle information, criminal offense summary and a recent photograph, among other things, to be posted on the Internet.

But even if the bill does become law, deputy attorney general Kurt Spohn said it could be awhile before folks can log on to the registry.

That’s because the due process additions under the new bill mean that every one of the hundreds of sex offenders in Hawai’i must be given a court hearing in which to argue whether he or she belongs on the public register.

And the state has the burden of proving that the “release of relevant information is necessary to protect the public,” according to the bill.

Robert do you know if this threshold still has to be met which would therefore uphold the bani ruling as precedents?

Mike r, True that in 2001 Bani established that a hearing must take place for due process. However after the 2003 SCOTUS precedents, Hawaii Supreme Court decided Hawaii v. Guidry in 2004. Hawaii v. Guidry was the follow-on case for a “Bani due process hearing” that is still precedent law today:

Unfortunately the 2004 Guidry court decided that the “Bani hearing” could take place AFTER a person is placed on the registry so long as they are given an opportunity to a hearing. So now a “Bani hearing” is considered due process if a person receives a hearing after 10 years on the registry for tier 1, 25 years for tier 2 and 40 years for tier 3. This is the current law in effect today and it looks nothing like what the Bani court decided in 2001.

even if this case hasn’t been revisited it still helps to reinforce the fact that our right to reputation is a fundamental right and requires a much higher degree of scrutiny than the rational basis test.and the court refused to decide on the other issues that was brought up in the bani case….

Mike r:

I’ve been a reader of this site for a little while and even though I agree with many of your points, I think you can have a crappy way of getting them across sometimes.

Also there’s the nasty way you went after that person once in the legal field.

Hopefully you didn’t run the person off. He sounded like a great “asset”. Can you imagine what it would be like to be the hated of the hated? Can’t be easy being shunned by both sides. I’ll admit, I’m cautious of people coming from the legal end of this but if they’re legit, they need help and understanding as well.

My two cents.

this case is still being cited in 2008 as in the following

The HSC explicitly adopted another exception to the mootness doctrine thereby allowing a case should be heard when the effect of the decision would have “collateral consequences” on the party seeking relief. Specifically, the litigant must show “a reasonable possibility that prejudicial collateral consequences will occur.” Putnam v. Kennedy, 900 A.2d 1256, 1261-62 (Conn. 2006). These consequences must be more than conjecture but can be less than preponderant evidence. Id.

What kind of Prejudice are we Talking About? While it is unclear how diverse the prejudice may be, the HSC here specifically addressed the prejudicial consequences to a person’s reputation in being found guilty of a TRO based on abuse. In evaluating a harmed reputation, the HSC revisited State v. Bani, 97 Hawai’i 285, 36 P.3d 1255 (2001), where the HSC examined the detrimental effects of the sex-offender registry. In that case, the HSC concluded that the registry (1) implied that the litigant was potentially dangerous and thus undermined his reputation and standing in the community; (2) could result in potentially reluctant employers and landlords; (3) could adversely affect his personal and professional life, employability, and associations. Id. at 294-96, 36 P.3d at 1264-66. It also had the potential to expose the litigant to vigilantism and physical violence. Id. at 291-92, 36 P.3d at 1261-62. The HSC admitted that although TRO based on abuse is less serious than a conviction for a sex offense, it still has the stigma of making Lethem a potentially dangerous person which undermines his standing in the community, it could result in reluctant landlords and employers, and it could affect his personal and professional life. Thus, the HSC applied the new exception here.

Good find, Mike R.

I’m seeing how that can fit into the following:

“California Constitution, Article 1, section 1.The state Constitution gives each citizen an “inalienable right” to pursue and obtain “privacy.”

For those of you who are interested in what’s going on in Nevada, there is a relatively new NV. website up and running for the Women Against Registry.

There are many who will watch their tier status move from Tier 1 to Tier 3 under the AWA or Nevada AB 579, which is currently in a “Stay” ordered by the Nevada Supreme Court.
Here’s some news from Reno.


great response roger that’s the kind of discourse we need on here just state facts as you know them and refrain from personal insults…excellent

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x