New evidence says US sex-offender policies are actually causing more crime

While articles like this are great, and really point to a “tide turning” there is a downside.

If a challenge to the core registration scheme isn’t done soon, then removing some of these restrictions will make the registry itself look more constitutional, or, at the least, it will make it more likely that judges will not find it unconstitutional once the worst parts get watered down.

It’s the perfect time for the right group of registered citizens to challenge numerous constitutional violations (Bill of Attainder, Due Process, Etc…) but not include the “ex-post-facto” since once they rule on that, judges will claim all the other violations will have to wait for another day and any relief will only be for those on old charges. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to make this happen, and cannot afford to contribute money to such a fight.

It just makes no sense that the registration scheme can completely bypass judicial involvement that normally allows punishment and restrictions to be tailored on an individual basis while providing an appeal process and future motions for modifications as situations change. One size fits all and public shaming lists need to come to an end.

What good does it do to toughen sex offender laws, and using public notification to put the public into a frenzy and point fingers and humiliate innocent registrants for the things they’ve done in their past, whenever a crime related to a sex offense has taken place?

yep deriliction of their duties…

man I love this statement i believe by the Michigan court..

”

The 2011 amendments also included a requirement that registrants notify authorities “immediately” and in person when they move, change their names, buy or borrow a car, enroll in school, start a new job, switch to a new email address, or plan to travel for more than seven days. Failure to comply is punishable by fines and prison terms as long as 10 years.

The 6th Circuit observes that “SORA resembles, in some respects at least, the ancient punishment of banishment” as well as “traditional shaming punishments” and parole or probation. It notes that the restraints imposed by the law are “greater than those imposed by the Alaska statute by an order of magnitude” and “relate only tenuously to legitimate, non-punitive purposes.”

Although SORA’s restrictions are based on the assumption that sex offenders have especially high recidivism rates, the court says, there is little evidence to support that premise. Michigan presented no data on recidivism rates among the state’s sex offenders (a telling omission), and research published by the Justice Department indicates that sex offenders “are actually less likely to recidivate than other sorts of criminals.” Furthermore, the evidence suggests “offense-based public registration has, at best, no impact on recidivism”; in fact, laws like SORA may “actually increase the risk of recidivism, probably because they exacerbate risk factors for recidivism by making it hard for registrants to get and keep a job, find housing, and reintegrate into their communities.” As for the rule excluding sex offenders from the vicinity of schools, “nothing the parties have pointed to in the record suggests that the residential restrictions have any beneficial effect on recidivism rates.”

The appeals court emphasizes the mismatch between SORA’s burdens and its benefits:

While the statute’s efficacy is at best unclear, its negative effects are plain on the law’s face….SORA puts significant restrictions on where registrants can live, work, and “loiter,” but the parties point to no evidence in the record that the difficulties the statute imposes on registrants are counterbalanced by any positive effects. Indeed, Michigan has never analyzed recidivism rates despite having the data to do so. The requirement that registrants make frequent, in-person appearances before law enforcement, moreover, appears to have no relationship to public safety at all. The punitive effects of these blanket restrictions thus far exceed even a generous assessment of their salutary effects”

magical music to my ears…

These articles always talk about Registered people being forced into homelessness and then being unable to track them, as if the main problem with that is the people can’t be tracked! F them. If I ever get to even within a hundred thousand dollars of being homeless, I’m going to hurt some people.

I don’t think the people who support the Registries get it. I’ve always had high standards and I’m not going to let them affect that. It’s not just that I’m going to have a good, normal life, it’s that I’m going to have a life that is a lot better than theirs as well. I am also going to try to do it on their backs. That is what their Registries are getting them.

The Registries completely turned me into a different person. Decades ago I was a very good, contributing citizen who felt a moral obligation to my fellow citizens. I was pro-government and pro-law enforcement. No longer. The Registries freed me from my obligations. I have a very, very long list of things that I’m not obliged to do any longer. I help my family, friends, and known allies. I will never take a chance of helping someone who may support the harassing, un-American Registries.

The other aspect that these articles never talk about is that some Registered people actively retaliate simply because the Registries exist. I am around random children all the time, just because the Registries exist. It is also how normal people typically live. So that is what I am going to do. I will never allow law enforcement to communicate with me. I will never help them with anything. And if there is anything that I can do that I think people who support the Registries would not like, I do it as often as I can – as long as it is not illegal or could possibly give them some other way to further attack me. Because then I would have to retaliate for that also.

America belongs to Americans like me. F the people trying to destroy it.

I found the following amendments to the California Constitution to be very interesting..note how it states no government agencies or entities shall have any immunities against prosecution or redress that only the people have such a right..

Article 1, Section 3, is hereby amended to read as follows:

The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and peaceably assemble, without penalty therefor.

(a) No person shall be denied the right to prosecute any petition in any court on its merits, and in particular, on the basis of prior petitions or his performance in pursuing such.

(b) No person shall be denied the right to prosecute a claim against any official or office of government on the basis of any practice or doctrine, such as “sovereign immunity”. Only the people are sovereign and immune, when met in convention, referendum, or election, and not public officials, agents, or assets.

(c) Any person shall have standing in any court, either in a separate action or in part of another proceeding, for declaratory or injunctive relief, or both, from any statute, regulation, administrative order, repeal, or other official act on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, unlawful, or inapplicable, without having to first become a defendant under such act, and without a presumption that such act is lawful or applicable.

im letting any negative comments towards just fky by me..I’ll say what I want when I want and if someone doesn’t like ignore me…
merry Christmas everyone….and I don’t hate janice or this site just because I respectively disagree with the tactics..

Janice can you any one tell me are the amendments valid in the following page. Its from the constitutional society. I just cant find references to this no where else but there…Thanks..
http://www.constitution.org/pol/us/ca/initcivil.htm

Gotta disagree. Any tier bill is junk.