OH: Proposed sex offender registry changes would be based on risk

As positive as I want to believe the intent of the article is, this is so literally straight out of Orwell’s 1984, it’s beyond frightening. And to top it all of, nobody really gives a shit. We could all be lined up and shot tomorrow and the general public probably wouldn’t bat an eye…. The words I would use to express my disdain for the current climate would be wasted on this crowd, as I’m certain the sentiment is already shared in full measure.

It saddens me that we are still so primitive a species that we see fit to indefinitely call public attention to someone’s worst mistakes, and hold firm that belief that those mistakes must define a person for life, and also hold firm that belief that the victims of abuse are incapable of healing without the indefinite humiliation and punishment of their abuser. Such a neanderthalic perspective is inappropriate, unhealthy and unproductive.

A better, more evolved alternative would be to forgive those that have made such mistakes and allocate additional resources toward education and prevention, both to those who have already offended, and to the general populace, who are, statistically speaking, almost two thousand times more likely to commit an offense.

It continues to be my hope that communication and fact-based legislation will be our emancipator. It is, perhaps, a fool’s hope, but giving up on that would mean letting go of the last bit of faith I have in humankind.

So they want to go from an offense based approach to a risk based approach or hybrid incorporating both systems. I see no legal difference between the two. Clearly the length of the registration is indicative of the risk, and the risk is indicative of the length of registration. Of course they will say it isn’t? So let’s ask them why one person is given 15 years of registration vs 25 years of registration. Well the person given 15 years committed a statutory offense and the person given the 25 year sentence committed forcible rape. Therefore, it is rationally connected that a person committing a non violent offense is entitled to a shorter term of registration. Makes sense?

Oh you mean there is less risk that the statutory offender will commit another crime within 15 years as opposed to the forceable rapist within 25? No, we mean it is a lesser offense, therefore, a shorter term of registration is in order. Let me ask you this question, what is the purpose of the registry? Isn’t it’s purpose to provide the public with information about an offender and the danger or risk they pose? Yes, but we don’t make that distinction, we base it solely on the offense. Wait a minute, are you claiming the state imposed the registry upon an offender solely because of the offense. Yes, yes I am! Then can it be inferred that you are adding an additional term of supervision upon them in connection with the offense? Umm, umm, No. Then what is it’s purpose? To make the information available, sir. But isn’t it already available through the doc conviction website? Yes, but not to the same degree. Oh, so you are simply saying the information is placed on two websites to insure it’s availability? Yes, yes sir I am. Well, I’ve heard a lot of poppycock stories in my lifetime but this one is really unique. How so Sir? #@_$#@&, are you kidding me, you want me to accept this cock and bull nonsense, and apply a regulatory scheme to what is clearly an additional term of supervision because you say you need two websites to disseminate and distribute the information. Yes sir. Get out of this court, and in the meantime consider yourself in contempt of this court. But your honor? Good day, sir.

This is real law!