ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

General News

Sex offender registries need reform

Twenty-five years ago, with activist Patty Wetterling by his side, Minnesota governor Arne Carlson signed America’s first law establishing a public registry system for sex offenders. The law, which Wetterling helped to write, aimed to give police a starting point for tracking down sexual predators like Danny Heinrich, the man who had kidnapped, molested and murdered Patty’s son, Jacob Wetterling. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Rick

    Well, I don’t agree with the making you safer or are safer opinion. You can get the same info from conviction sites without having to add all of the additional costs and loss of citizenship registration laws cause. If you are saying you are safer because you don’t associate with persons convicted of sex crimes, well maybe, but you probably wouldn’t have with or without a registry.

    Registries are for property, products, animals, etc. We are human beings with every right to be free of your slavery and alleged fear. You have every right not to associate with us, don’t hire us, don’t let us live with you, in private. But if your in the public, rent to the public, employ to the public we have the right to access.

    My entire life I’ve had to live in fear because of the kind of prejudices and fears your kind promotes, racism, sexism, ignorance, non tolerance, etc., and you use it to commit crimes against people. The reality is registries are criminal acts, civil disobedience and treason against the constitution, your kind so blatantly ignores.

    You can’t hide behind this alleged public safety argument anymore. Yea, registries need to be reformed, they need to be eliminated in every respect. And scared weak people need to be given psychiatric help, when you fear what you can’t control or stop no matter how many laws you pass.

    • Rick

      Yea, it’s your kind of people this world needs to be concerned about, your safety overrules all legal treaties, constitutional contracts, and basic laws. You breed intolerance, anger, resentment, and then you have the audacity to claim you are decent people. You promote separatism, your children are a reflection of what you promote. Women are men’s property, minority groups are just there for your amusement to be used the way you determine, you create all kinds of ways to deny people their rights, voting, owning property, getting credit, getting a job, living a life. Yea, your such nice and kind people. You deserve everything you get, that’s what you have proven to me.

      You say Sora’s aren’t punishment, but you take full control over my image, my life, my associations, etc. And you say that’s legal. But when someone takes a child and destroys their lives because of any other kind of abuse, oh well, that’s just normal. Sure, throw babies in the trash, starve them, beat them, disfigure them, teach them to hate, etc. Wow, you really have morals. Give us all a break.

      Truth hurts doesn’t it, as if you care what truth is. It’s this simple, if someone does something wrong, you can punish them when necessary. After that you have no right whatsoever to bother them legally, your private feelings are yours to do with what you want. What, is that too hard for you to accept, oh poor you, you love to hurt people forever, like your God you claim gives you the right to hate forever, your just cowards who hire other people to do your dirty work, clothed in blue. Yea, you taught them well, shoot to kill, anyone that appears to be a threat, you have our permission. You make me sick, all I did was touch someone, you murder them legally. Kiss my @$$.

  2. Rick

    Legal molestation = federal and state Sora’s.

    • j

      speaking if “legal rape/molestation ” it seams like the U.S is leading and contributing its muscle on all, in which they know and have been knowing the rights of millions have and will be continued to be punked!

  3. Chris F

    I would love to comment on this article directly on the original site, but like many sites, I can’t because it requires a Facebook account which I am forbidden to have.

    I would like to inform the author that he is incorrect about any type of public registry “helping”.

    All public registries help do is cause families to under-report sex crimes because of the stigma, loss of employment of the primary bread winner for usually life, loss of housing for the family, and embarrassment and shaming that often affects the victim when they are in the same family of the accused. This leads to more victims before the offender can get the help and support that they need. It’s just plain stupid, and there are reasons you don’t do things like this for ANY crime and should actually follow the US Constitution for EVERY law.

    Put the punishment and re-rehabilitation back in the hands of the judges and juries and take it away from the politicians that just want another feather in their cap for adding another sex offender restriction that will go unopposed. The lengths of time on the registry and offences that enable it are completely arbitrary. It just doesn’t work and the entire scheme needs to be eradicated…”for the sake of the children”.

    • Will A

      I just posted about Facebook at the source article.

    • Timmr

      Chris you and all of us should write to the author, the editor, the local official about this. Man, by limiting discussion to facebook, they are cutting off our first ammendment right to free speech. Some may just want to not use facebook simply because they don’t want a greedy corporation selling personal info to other big corporations (and the government using it to track them) and has nothing to do with registration. They have, we all have, a first ammendment right to maintain how we message ourselves to the public. It is our beliefs AND how we choose to represent them that are written into the first. Just read the whole ammendment. It is not about saying things, but how you choose to say them. Making a contract with facebook for your communication means is your choice, not the news company’s.

  4. mike r

    yes if someone can comment or send messages to this writer please do and let me suggest the following along with some of the comments in this section….

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

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB)

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

    The full report is available online at

    http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf

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

    Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231

    National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America.

    The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.

    The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350

    The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483

    Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483

    These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

    People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following.

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

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

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

    Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm

    Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013

    Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates.

    The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf

    Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy.

    A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7%

    Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf

    Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.

    The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%

    Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf

    Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do.

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

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

    http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf

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

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

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

    Thank you for your time.

  5. PIA

    It will never happen… because POLITICIANS have to submit a bill to reform it and pretty much NO ONE EVER WILL as it is job security for a politician. Just like the $ they take for special interest. If you can BUY a politician it MIGHT happen but be voted DOWN. The whole COPS Shooting citizens and citizens shooting back, hasnt done anything law wise except make the news.
    Biggest thing of a city/residence restrictions is to get SO’s to MOVE outta thier city/state, Best to leave the US and you ALMOST cant do that now… Best to FLY to a country that doesnt care and then leave from there to where you wanna go and be a illegal ;( Maybe someday the US wont let thier own SO citizens back in then if you get deported youll finally be FREE !:)

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 *

.