ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)


MI: Sex registry rewrite should focus on risk

[The Detroit News]

Michigan’s ill-advised scheme to pile on punishment for convicted sex offenders failed to get even a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, leaving the Legislature to craft a new law that will restore both sanity and fairness to the state’s sex offender registry.

The High Court said Monday it will not take up Michigan’s appeal of a 6th Circuit Court ruling that struck down its practice of applying new restrictions retroactively to those on the list.

Now, the state has no choice but to draft new rules for monitoring sex offenders, and restricting their activities.

It’s a blessing in disguise for the state.

Read more


Join the discussion

  1. Mike G

    Good article, but no one is mentioning “ex-post facto” concerns. THAT concerns me!

    • AJ

      I’m fine with their mentioning it as punishment. In fact, I prefer it being viewed as punishment in general, versus just ex post facto punishment.

  2. concerned registrant

    Again, “risk” based sounds good in theory. But in practice, it’s a lot more difficult to implement. Risk based registries ought to be Constitutionally challenged because it implies that people will be punished for crimes that they *might* do, based on quasi-actuarial “tools” such as the Static 99.

    If they are going to use a half ass job by using the Static 99 tests, then how is that truly better than the current system? Bureaucrats love the Static 99 tests because they provide the illusion of simple numbers derived from binary-like answers to “risk factors.” But the risk factors are derived from a mix and match of various non-contact and violent offenders, all of whom with various personal characteristics (education, ethnicity) lumped together. Static takes no account for personal characteristics of the FORMER offender.

Leave a Reply

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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *