ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021


Canada: Officials advise Goodale to rethink plan of public sex offender database

Federal officials have advised Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale to put the brakes on setting up a publicly accessible database of high-risk child sex offenders. Full Article

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Here’s one of their lists of concerns:

Use of information in public sex offender registries in the United States to carry out vigilante actions;

They can use it, but it’s insignificant to our case for some odd reason.

“Lack of evidence that such databases have a significant impact on reducing the rate of sex offences, compared with treatment and reintegration programs that have led to reductions in recidivism, often at a lower cost.” I like this one the best, New Person, because it is the truth. The dumb $hits, here in the US can not get this in their heads.

Much of the destructive, extra-punishment punishment we inflict on sex offenders is due to the widely held belief that they’re more likely to re-offend than the perpetrators of other classes of crimes. This has been the main justification for the Supreme Court’s authorization of sex-offender registries and for holding sex offenders indefinitely after they’ve served their sentences. Lower courts have then cited those rulings to justify a host of other measures, from severe restrictions on where sex offenders can live to GPS monitoring of their every move. The problem, as Adam Liptak writes at the New York Times, is that… Read more »

The courts didn’t have to make the laws, but they could have instructed the legislatures to come up with alternatives to the problems of sexual abuse that didn’t need a registry involved, better achieved the legitimate goal of preventing sexual abuse, and were not as constitutionally suspect as registering people in bulk like cattle. The legislatures, could have explored other factors of relieving poverty, fighting ignorance, treating mental illness, opportunity, education, instead of presuming registration is the answer. They didn’t do their job.

Question: wonder how the SCOTUS would process this testimony. “From the research I’ve conducted, I can tell you, in short: these [sex offender registration] laws don’t work…. Being on the registry actually increases [offenders’] rate of reoffending even though we know that sex offenders actually have very low rates of reoffending. The stress of being on the registry influences them to commit more offenses—and they’re typically not sex offenses….” “We have this idea that these registries will help people—but only 37 percent of sex crimes are ever reported…most people who are victimized will be victimized by someone not on a… Read more »

Here are some of the reason they’re citing AGAINST a public registry. Reasons we’ve all known about. -Fears that many ex-offenders “go underground” to avoid the scrutiny and exposure of family members that comes from publication of their offences, address and other personal information. “This further inhibits effective law enforcement as police do not know the whereabouts of these offenders and are no longer able to monitor them to prevent possible reoffending”; -Use of information in public sex offender registries in the United States to carry out vigilante actions; -Lack of evidence that such databases have a significant impact on… Read more »

“It would also help federal departments carry out their mandates – for instance, providing Passport Canada with information that might result in revocation of a travel document, the notes say. In addition, the database could help foreign officials keep an eye on offenders who travel to their countries.” This can only be done via a publicly-accessible database? Hmm, methinks I smell a rat (read: lie) there. And to claim that “foreign officials” are going to use the public database for “keep[ing] an eye on offenders” is ludicrous. Foreign entities are going to expect Canadian officials to alert them–perhaps via an… Read more »

Their last concern of why not to do it:

“Lack of evidence that such databases have a significant impact on reducing the rate of sex offences, compared with treatment and reintegration programs that have led to reductions in recidivism, often at a lower cost.”

Since when does a politician care if something actually works? As long as it gets votes, they don’t care if it causes more victims, like the US registry actually does.

wow , common since thinking ,hmm , I am just trying to remember the last time our own gov has used any (Common Since)

Yeah, actually weighing the cost and benefits using data. Here politicians weigh how it affects their image.

Well said Timmr, on both counts.

Bonjour, I do not have a criminal record and officially, I am not on the registered sex offender registry. However, I am being tracked and followed by community vigilantes 24/7. They know where I am and they follow me everywhere, and I mean everywhere. I have secretly been implanted with a Micro-Chip. A GPS device has been put in my car. My telephone is wiretapped, my house is bugged. Everybody denies that this is happening! The idea is to put the blame on the suspect and accuse him of being delusional. This is called plausible deniability. It doesn’t work with… Read more »

US Supreme Court justices are all appointed. None are elected. That said, it doesn’t mean that politics isn’t a factor.

Be sure you take your meds, and have a nice day.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x