ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (04/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings




MA: Our view – SJC ruling makes sex offenders ‘invisible’ to the public

____ had already served a lengthy prison sentence for rape when, police say, he posted a fake apartment listing on Craigslist earlier this month, luring a woman to his Swampscott apartment, where he beat and sexually assaulted her.

The victim of ‘_’_’s alleged May 3 attack should have been able to learn of his criminal past before meeting him. And his neighbors in Swampscott deserved to know a sexual predator was living nearby. However, thanks to a highly questionable ruling two years ago by the Supreme Judicial Court, no one outside of the police officers who dealt with him knew of his background. Full Article

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Ugh….yet another fear mongering “journalist” trying to infer the crime wouldn’t have been committed if the person was on the registry.

Complete garbage. First, the woman most likely wouldn’t have looked him up before meeting, and second, he probably wouldn’t use his real name if he was on the registry.

At least it sounds like Massachusetts moved in the right direction by requiring people actually be deemed a threat of future crimes by a trial before being stuck on the public registry. I didn’t know any state made this type of progress! Are there others?

@Chris F
You touched on the exact points that came to my mind as I read this. Apparently we weren’t the only ones, as the comments attached to the op-ed say likewise. In fact, every comment attached (as of my viewing it) is pro-RC/anti-registry. Very heartening to see that sort of support.

What made me chuckle a bit was the writer’s complaint that, “[m]aking things worse, the Supreme Judicial Court backdated its ruling, saying it applied to already classified offenders.”
The writer seems to have a problem with retroactive (“backdated”) decisions. Where was that displeasure when SORAs were implemented like that? Oh wait, that served their agenda so the Constitution didn’t matter.

Also, “[a]uthorities say it could be years before all the reclassification hearings are held. In the meantime, newly convicted offenders aren’t being classified.”
Maybe if the process didn’t force monitoring and hounding the 95+% who are of little risk, they’d have the time and resources to move a little faster on those who actually pose a risk. To me, another example of the system and scheme hindered by its own ridiculousness. [Cue crocodile tears.]

Lastly, does anyone else see the irony that this op-ed comes from Salem, MA? Didn’t they have a problem with this sort of baseless fear a few hundred years ago…? 🙂


imagine that the goid ol’ clear and convincing evidence standards, it seems like I’ve heard someone saying that for a while now..hmmmmmm

Typical fear-mongering. Use a rare worst-case example to drum up fear and rage toward the other 95+% of law- abiding registrants who are just trying to get on with life in peace.

And Chris F, I have to disagree with you on one point: having a trial to determine one’s future risk is akin to being put on trial for a crime one might commit in the future. I don’t think that’s necessarily progress. I don’t believe it is the government’s (or anyone’s) job to “predict” what someone might do in the future.

@Tired of this

I only think it’s progress in that it involves the judicial system and not just legislature declaring all committing certain crimes need to be on it. A public registry won’t work no matter who says you should be on it though.

It should be done the same way it was done before the registry. If someone is a very high risk of re-offence based on multiple prior convictions, and failed rehabilitation, then either keep them locked up or set up strict monitoring when they get out. A judge could also order neighbors be alerted directly. Take away his passport if he engaged in foreign travel sex tourism.

The public web site is never the solution, as the “public” isn’t trained to deal with it.

I had two Judges and my evaluator all state that I’m not a danger to society.
Wish California was more fair about who they do and don’t deem a threat.
Nope! Throw em All to the Lions!

I love the witch at the top of the paper. Pretty much tells you everything you need to know about Salem. Last time I checked those guys pretty much invented the witch hunt. Classic.

“When people in power invent their own facts and attack those who question them, it can mark the beginning of the end of a free society,” said Clinton. “That is not hyperbole. It is what authoritarian regimes throughout history have done. They attempt to control reality, not just our laws and our rights and our budgets, but our thoughts and beliefs,” said Clinton.

Me…. Yeah I can totally relate.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x