TX: The Cost of Texas’ Sex Offender Registration Program

As of September 1, 2017, the State of Texas had 90,616 registered sex offenders.

Sex offender registration has been around a long time in Texas—since 1991, in fact. The state legislature has continually amended or tweaked these programs ever since. For example, the legislature mandated that the public be notified about registered sex offenders in 1995 following the 1993 abduction/murder of seven-year-old Ashley Estell in Plano, Texas. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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

This article started out with my being wary of where it was headed, but in the end it’s a decent piece on our part. My question is how widely it will be read. It would be nice were it an op-ed in the Austin Statesman itself, or perhaps the Houston Chronicle or the Dallas Morning News.

It sounds as though TX isn’t too interested in “taking a knee” to the Feds’ AWA mandates.

This is a very good article about how the registry is being misused on several levels. All this can be brought back to the SCOTUS denoting how registrants have an 80% recidivism rate as a subset and all registrants are a public threat to society to re-offend.

This is how apparent and disgusting the 2003 Smith v Doe decision is upon humans. That extreme was used as a fact when it was never scientifically substantiated and the stat was not from a professional within the statistical field. Yet, the courts still identify with that false fact. How much more information do registrants need to prove the 2003 decision was based off of a false fact?!