Sex offender residency laws – There are no easy answers -Editorial

If you read the following editorial as being sympathetic toward sex offenders, you are missing the point.

We are not being sympathetic. We simply want to state that it’s not always possible to legislate our way to safety. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I see this part a lot:

“A widely supported 2004 study cited as recently as 2015 by the U.S. Department of Justice states that the sexual recidivism estimates for all sex offenders in the study were 14 percent at five years, 20 percent at 10 years, and 24 percent at 15 years.”

I believe that’s the statistics the SMART office pushes to support their own existence, so I wish people would use a more complete and documented analysis. A more proper analysis would differentiate between types of offences because there is a huge difference between recidivism of minor non contact offences and the child rapist.

SMART report here:

In the SMART reports, they stick this little part off in some notes page and away from the main article: “Some studies that examine the recidivism of offenders on parole or probation include in their definition of recidivism imprisonment that results from a technical violation of the conditions of release or supervision.”.

I would love to see a study of how many convicted of sex crimes get tossed back in jail on technical violations and violations of laws written only against them VS every other criminal that does his time and is released. That may be the “shock the conscience” type of data we need to challenge the registry and the laws written just for us.

One study of data was used according to the article, but the data does not seem right according to what others have published, including here. It is irritating when they don’t publish their source document online link for others to review, but make people hunt and peck for it (I did not find it).

The overall point is valid, but you could think that anything is not worth one person in the end. That means we should preclude life in general because something is bound to happen to someone at the hands of someone else!

Does Los Angeles have residency restrictions. I’m not on anything.