The Sex Offender Registry Leaves Female Sex Offenders Open to Abuse

The plight of registered female sex offenders could be a hard sell to some. Like males who offend, they can and do cause extreme physical and emotional damage to their victims. In addition to prison time, they can also be subject to a long list of lifetime restrictions such as where they can live and work as well as being listed, often publicly, on their state’s sex offender registry. The reason for these post-sentence restrictions come under the guise of public safety, but a growing number of critics are disputing the true benefits of what they call “draconian” laws. 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

Thank you! This is an important subject that hardly ever gets talked about. I am a female RC and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been subject to sexual harassment and even sexual battery. I am not publicly listed, but I had been open about my status. Men seem to think it’s a green light to take advantage of me because in their minds, “whose going to believe a sex offender?”

Nice to see that Vice picked her story up. Anything to spread awareness (for all subjected to Online shaming) and to cast Megan’s Law into disrepute.

What state thinks it’s ok to force a registered citizen to disclose their status before consensual, lawful sexual encounters? Is that common? Is being a RC equivalent to carrying an STD?

A very good article. Never even considered the collateral damage as well as the media sensationalism for ” (female) hot for teacher” article promotions.

One thing I didn’t like was the citing of 13.5% recidivism rate after denoting 80% recidivism rates were wrong. Maybe should use state studies to show a vast array of rates for the readers so the readers can have a grasp of the variances. I say this because in California, its own state program, called CASOMB, has been tracking recidivism rates that only look at re-offenses and found the state recidivism rate was under 1% for the past two consecutive years. (Under 1% because they are no longer including failure to register as a re-offense because it’s not.)

Again, here in Ca, it’s under 1% recidivism rate for the whole lot. This article is great as it presented a sociological/psychological collateral damage to women. Yet people follow stats as well. 80% is bad. 13.5% is in the double digits. 1.5% is very minimal, but that’s only for women. The 13.5% was arbitrarily chosen by the author as the “correct” stat. This just paints the registry is just wrong for women based upon those stats provided in the article. It should be wrong for all.

It isn’t just women. A public list opens everyone up to abuse. If that isn’t true then why is everyone uptight about giving out personal information on forms, like SS# and such. Of course the registry is a gold mine for scammers. Any public disclosure of personal information will definitely be abused.