Editorial: Shackling sex offenders for life is no way to administer justice.

Admin

Many sex offenders in Missouri are finding themselves shackled for life to the state’s criminal justice system, even though some pleaded guilty or were convicted before a law tethering them to GPS monitoring ankle bracelets existed. The law took effect Jan. 1 but is being applied retroactively to crimes committed on or after Aug. 28, 2006.Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
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.  
 

7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This can’t continue..Lifetime parole-probation, lifetime shackles, lifetime reporting and contact with police, lifetime restrictions of all sorts, castration, civil commitment, travel bans, no right to bear arms to protect ourselves and our families, it’s got to end..help me end it..
https://www.gofundme.com/constrights
Maybe I can start a class action or just get help with my own case that will set precedents for others.feel free to share or ignore it but something has to change…

0
Reply
View Replies (3)

“The law should not treat sex offenders lightly, particularly since scientific data suggests many are likely to offend again.”

The editorial says this, but their reference link counters that statement. Only if one includes both sex- and non-sex-related re-offense do the numbers in their citation become anything. That all said, it’s good to see a major paper such as the Post-Dispatch putting out an op-ed like this.

I’d add a comment to their op-ed, but since I’m not on FB (thanks, but I like my privacy Mr. Zuckerberg), I cannot. One more reason Packingham needs to be found unconstitutional: one cannot even provide commentary to online free-press items.

–AJ

0
Reply

I believe the Sex offender Registry has contributed greatly to the US mass incarceration worse than the war on drugs epidemic.

0
Reply

Yes, and we have the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws to thank partly for that . They increased the size and presence of federal control agencies, pushed through mandatory sentencing laws and snuck in no-knock warrants ( compliance checks). Except for criminal asset seizure/ forfeiture , they are using the same blueprint. If they could have figured out a way to justify confiscating someone’s whole house because they suspected a computer inside was used in committing a sex crime they would have.

I see the registry as a shift away from them having to endure the costs of incarceration ( food, medical, staff etc) by forcing people to imprison themselves psychologically and on so many different levels. Like the unicorn in captivity, we are.

0
Reply