Sex offender rules need to be revisited (Letter to the Editor)

Surely there needs to be a lot of changes made in the sex offender registry. I heard about a man in his early thirties who committed some sort of a sex crime.

This young man wanted to become a male nurse. But because of his record, he could not get into nurse’s training. He paid an attorney $2,000 for his service, but his case is still pending. It went all the way to the governor two years ago, and the governor has not taken action to seal his records.

This young man wants to do better but needs help from the governor. He should be commended for his effort and wanting to do something good. Give him a chance. If he fails, prosecute to the limits of the law. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  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
  19. 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.
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

Another bit of weight added to our side of the scale. Now members of the public are starting to agree with the truth, and see how useless and overly broad the registries are.

From the 2003 Smith v Doe case opinion:
Second, the Act does not subject respondents to an affirmative disability or restraint. It imposes no physical restraint, and so does not resemble imprisonment, the paradigmatic affirmative disability or restraint. Hudson, 522 U. S., at 104. Moreover, its obligations are less harsh than the sanctions of occupational debarment, which the Court has held to be nonpunitive. See, e. g., ibid. Contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s assertion, the record contains no evidence that the Act has led to substantial occupational or housing disadvantages for former sex offenders that would not have otherwise occurred. Also unavailing is that court’s assertion that the periodic update requirement imposed an affirmative disability. The Act, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person. The holding that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release is rejected because, in contrast to probationers and supervised releasees, offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision.

This is the court opinion, which actually informs you of their logic or reasoning behind the regulatory act.

The article above says that registry negates him from having a particular job. The registry wasn’t supposed to do that.

In this second factor, the SCOTUS is dictating that the aims of the registry will never cross this threshold. I do hope that Snynder will use this second factor as a reference in their defense, directly quoting the Chief Justice with the factor and this opening salvo, “Respondents cannot show, much less by the clearest proof, that the Act’s effects negate Alaska’s intention to establish a civil regulatory scheme.”

Here, one can denote that Chief Justice Kennedy is implying the notion that “you are guilty until proven innocent.” You can find the dissenting opinion concurring with that thought upon the premise of whether or not a scheme is regulatory or punitive. Anyhow, years later we can reflect upon this idea that you are guilty until proven innocent AFTER YOU ARE RELEASED FROM CUSTODY with the “the registration scheme is deemed civil regulatory first unless definitively punitive.”

I can only state to what I personally know and see. And that is the majority of the information that was used to make sex offender laws as they are today have come from false information and false facts misunderstandings and false propaganda. I have done years if research and have brought true facts to many in authority and I know for a fact that the government had knoldge for a long time of these false and wrongfully made rules , laws, and regulations were used in making and inforcing cruel and unjust laws. The State knew that the majority of persons were afraid of bad publicity being placed upon them for voicing the true and real facts to the general public.
Even if you, me, we, were to lose a case or two those persons who were in any way injured in these bad laws that were made due known false information need to put into a class action suit for two very important reasons 1. Punitive and 2. Bringing the truth to the ears and eyes of the general public I want every lawyer or if you know of any with some guts and some nerve who are thick skinned to get in contact with Janice and offer up their services. The true facts will bring forth our major goals much much faster than just giving comments on the site there is not enough if the general public reading these comments to make a real difference it would not hurt if we could get the more intelligent members of the public to comment the ones who think and comment with their heads not with their emotional hearts . It’s thinking with ones head that is truly in the best interest of the state as a whole.