Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of March 2018. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
Watch the March 3 D.C. Vigil on live streaming!
We are very pleased with the number of people who are coming to the Washington DC... -
ACSOL Online Meeting March 22, 2025
You are invited to join ACSOL Executive Director and civil rights attorney Janice Bellucci and an... -
UT: Utah senator says former AG Reyes’ office used lawmakers as ‘pawns’ in push for increased penalties
Source: utahnewsdispatch.com 2/24/25 A Utah state senator said the Utah Attorney General’s Office, under the leadership...
Did any one, especially the flats rc’s on here see the release of CALL ME BY YOUR NAME ?
Interesting hownit was a 22 y.o. American and a 17 y.o. American in Italia. What happened different in the 80’s, especially 84-85??? It’s now on DVD.
This is when this movie was set to have taken place. Any other observations and what can be learned by others on here that were arrested for the Same and now is an RC???
Man that 2005 study on table 2 “re-arrest” for sex offenders 1.7.
Another telling point of interest.
Among prisoners released for rape or sexual assault in
30 states in 2005, an estimated 5.6% were arrested for
rape or sexual assault within 5 years of release.
As compare to:
Among prisoners released for assault in 30 states in
2005, an estimated 34.4% were arrested for assault
within 5 years of release.
An estimated 23.2% of prisoners released for burglary in
30 states in 2005 were arrested for burglary during the
5-year follow-up period.
OMG people, this is an incredibaly damaging doc for the other side. Look at this, it is straight stating that the reports from the 1983 or 84 studies are useless and inaccurate.
Given the changes in the characteristics of the
U.S. prison population, an increase in the number of
states participating in the study, and improvements
made to the nation’s criminal history records since
the mid-1990s, direct comparisons of the recidivism
estimates from the study on prisoners released in
30 states in 2005 should not be compared to those from
the 1983 and 1994 BJS prisoner recidivism studies.
In addition, this study employed a 5-year follow-up
period, 2 years longer than found in the previous BJS
recidivism studies.
That is how I am reading it. WOW is all I can say. I love it also because it is short and sweet.
Man this is a report from this year. Great find. Man I need to get this in front of the judge.
Makes you wonder if the Justices have done their own independent RSO law research outside the courtroom. The things they’ll learn, including incorrect research being used.
Supreme Court rule: (Other) justices shouldn’t conduct independent research
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rule-other-justices-shouldnt-conduct-independent-research/2018/03/25/7a4f790a-2ebd-11e8-b0b0-f706877db618_story.html
Yep I got that 1.7% issue. Table 1 it is 5.0 for sex offenders but table 2 it is 5.6. I do not believe this is a supplement from 83 or 93 or whatever this states it is from 2005.
Recidivism of Prisoners
Released in 30 States in 2005:
Patterns from 2005 to 2010
Yeah it looks like I need to compile data that I want introduced into the record at the status conference. Not sure how it works, anyone want to trow out there any knowledge of what goes on during the pre-trial status conference go for it.
I believe if a case were to be put forth to SCOTUS with regard to SORNA being more punitive than civil based on the 2016 release of DOJ 2005-2010 report on recidivism rates, showing the public safety does not weight more than the effect any longer, it would have a good chance of winning.
Especially since the rejection to hear appeal on Muniz v PA.
Here we go Robin just in case you haven’t followed along.
http://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite
It is happening one way or the other.
Can anyone relate some experiences when they’ve contacted the schools to visit for something to do with their child?
How did it work? Do you call and ask to speak to the principal? Did you have to give any details other than you were an RC wanting to attend Parent Conferences (or whatever)? Did you have to be met at the door and escorted around? Other than the principal? Do you think other people knew?
Most importantly, was anyone ever denied?
When I took my plea I knew about the “can’t go to schools” thing. I was confused about the details though. I thought RC’s couldn’t go to schools in general unless you had a reason to be there. If you had a child attending and there was an official school event, or your child was sick and you had to go pick him up, or even just dropping him off or picking him up OF COURSE that was fine. Parental rights trumped anything else.
That’s what I thought. But I was wrong.
I haven’t been to my kid’s school since this happened. Have managed to avoid it. But I won’t be able to avoid it much longer.
If I have to call the principal and ask for permission [permission? To participate in my child’s education? WTF?] I don’t know if I could do it. I can’t tell the principal that I’m a “290 registrant”, or an “RC” or any of those other terms we use. I will have to tell him that I’m a “Registered S** Off**der”.
I can’t say those words about me. I can’t type those words. I can’t think of those words about me. I can’t.
I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but this sucks.
Yikes! I just heard Thom Hartman on WCPT radio in Chicago say “The recidivism rate of sex offenders is hugely high” and “Most sex offenders are mentally ill.” It was in a discussion about registering gun owners and somehow comparing them to sex offenders. I couldn’t believe my ears. Thom Hartman is normally very rational and well informed, and his show is on many “progressive” stations throughout the country (11AM to 2PM Central Time). The show’s over now but maybe a ton of authoritative well-spoken people with the real facts could call first thing tomorrow and try to get him straight. Warning: he’s a very strong talker and you will need to be forceful to make your points. The call in number is 202.808.9925.
It would be like arguing religion or politics with your in-laws.
This is modern day demagoguery at its best. Everything about the registry is blatant demagoguery but yet there is no one calling them out for it. I will be throwing that in my suit at some point because it is hard to deny since there is no rationality to the laws and the politicians are feeding off of the emotions of their constituents emotions in order to get elected or score points.
Demagoguery is a manipulative approach — often associated with dictators and sleazy politicians — that appeals to the worst nature of people. Demagoguery isn’t based on reason, issues, and doing the right thing; it’s based on stirring up fear and hatred to control people.
The Founders’ fears of a threat to constitutional democracy led them to design a system to thwart potential demagogues, a system built upon three branches of government to check and balance one another’s powers. But these checks are not fail-safe, and historically, even the strongest of constitutional regimes can collapse. Think of the Roman Republic, which also had a system of checks and balances but ultimately gave way to the dictatorship of the Caesars.
If you’re not up to calling in to the Thom Hartman radio program (and I agree it’s challenging), definitely Tweet him. Let’s fill up his Tweet page with rational factual information. This guy is very influential, so it would be very helpful to get his attention.
Here’s his Twitter: https://twitter.com/Thom_Hartmann
Here is some rational information.
The Smith panel admitted the argument of in-person reporting requirements were not in the Alaska Statute and yet the Court still held significant weight and showed concern when comparing the requirements of the ASORA to probation. Plaintiff contends the Court may place much more weight on this issue since there is onerous in-person reporting requirements, and for all the other reasons stated in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Opposition, as well as supra and infra. The Smith Court noted “The Court of Appeals held that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release in terms of the restraint imposed. 259 F. 3d, at 987. This argument has some force, but, after due consideration, we reject it. Probation and supervised release entail a series of mandatory conditions and allow the supervising officer to seek the revocation of probation or release in case of infraction. See generally Johnson v. United States, 529 U. S. 694 (2000).” (emphasis added) Id. at 101.
Plaintiff suffers and is obligated to an extensive “series of mandatory conditions” and “law enforcement” are the “officers who seek the revocation” of Plaintiff’s liberty and imprison him for even innocuous and innocent unintended registration (“infractions”) violations. Plaintiff faces “Significant Prison Terms” that are longer than what Plaintiff served for his triggering offense, and which are much longer than from any “infraction” Plaintiff may have endured from a parole violation.
Furthermore, the rules for the “management” and “supervision” of sex offenders are codified in the Penal Code Part 3. of Imprisonment and the Death Penalty [2000-10007], Title 9. Punishment Options [8000-9003], Chapter 3. Section 9000 et seq. Besides the probative value of where this section is codified (Punishment Options), the relevant section is 9000 (e) which states ““Supervision” means a specialized approach to the process of overseeing, insofar as authority to do so is granted to the supervising agency, all significant aspects of the lives of sex offenders who are being managed [supervised] as described in subdivision.” (emphasis added). Plaintiff remains under the direct “supervision” of the state in “all significant aspects” of Plaintiff’s life. This “supervision” along with all the onerous in-person reporting requirements, the at home compliance checks, the interference in Plaintiff’s child /grandchild custodial rights, the Plaintiff is statutorily prohibited from federal housing and residing in certain areas, banned from even being present in a vast array of locations, having to give notice every time Plaintiff visits another county or state, including 21 day advance notice if he plans to leave the country, the internet publication of sensitive private information about Plaintiff that is not otherwise available, combined with all the other direct and indirect affirmative disabilities, the state does indeed control “every significant aspect of Plaintiff’s life.” This is undoubtedly synonymous with probation or parole and even “more” sever in many aspects than what Plaintiff endured while he was on parole. Plaintiff’s case is incredibly distinguishable from Smith or “any” other cases brought before the Court.
I listen to the Thom Hartmann (note two n’s) show almost every day and agree with almost everything he says, typically based on solid evidence. What a shock to hear him disparage sex offenders with discredited information.
I’m about 99% sure that I quoted him correctly in my previous posts, but if anyone is thinking of making a big deal about this and wants to verify with your own ears, there is a YouTube video of the show. You have to pay $10 to watch it and I can’t get myself to fund even for that amount his uninformed/lying comments.
Here’s the link if you want to listen yourself. The comments are in the last five minutes of the three hour broadcast, when he and the guest are talking about the effectiveness of a gun owners registry.
https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=848679&rid=1587788&redirect_uri=/posts/full-program-for-17806367
He seems a reasonable person susceptible to factual information, and very influential. If we could turn him around on this issue it could really change public perception.
Here’s the link to listen to this in a free Podcast. The Hartmann Report — Gun Control Debate.
https://www.thomhartmann.com/
Scroll forward to about 8:50. The caller, a former NJ prosecutor, is the first one to bring up the sex offense laws. He is trying to talk about how they used to rely on the determination of an examiner, but that in the 80’s and early 90’s, most laws moved to an offense-based system. What he doesn’t get into, because the subject is actually about guns, is how that has been hugely problematic. The host, Thom Hartmann, goes on to reply “That’s not a good comparison because a) most sex offenders have a mental illness which doesn’t just go away, and b) the recidivism rate is HUGELY HIGH” as compared to gun crimes.
What can we do to enlighten Mr. Hartmann? Maybe Janice or another expert could get interviewed on his show or at least post on his blog/website.
I’ve been thinking on the 2005-1010 study and the effects it could have.
For us it means the rates are not as they say “frightingly high”
For them it could turn on us with them then saying “see the registry works in bringing the rates down”.
Is it just me being paranoid?
So for the first time since I’ve been registering in Massachusetts, they are now asking for email address and any internet identifiers (screen names, Facebook name, etc) in order to comply with SORNA. I have a few questions:
– I had no idea MA was a Sorna state, when did that happen?
– I am a software developer, and have literally a dozen different email addresses, and probably as many internet identifiers. What should I do here?
I’m NOT looking for legal advice, just opinions.
Any thoughts?
Thanks!
The thing is Robin is that the recidivism rates have not changed from before or after implementation of the Megan’s Law so that argument goes out the window. Also the gov reports state that the laws are useless and are counterproductive. And according to the 1994 report cited by the CA AG in my case states that the rates are nearly identical to the current rates. So there goes that argument.
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13). Under the current system, many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of [who] are low risk offenders. As a result, law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements [] destabilize the [lives] of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 [visited March 17,2018].
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s Law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrests for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual re offending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual re-offense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350 [visited March 17,2018].
From Justice Policy Institute. “Registries and notification have not been proven to protect communities from sexual offenses and may even distract from more effective approaches”. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf [visited March 17,2018].
If anyone wants some reports here we go.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) “2014 Outcome Evaluation Report”; http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf CA 0.8% recidivism rate. Figure 11 [p.30]…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2010 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report; http://www.casomb.org/docs/sombreport1.pdf CA 2.4% total returned for new sex offense within the first year, 0.84% returned in the second year of release, and 0.28% for new sex offense in the third year, California sex offender management Board January 2008, table 3-2 [p.74]…………………………………………………………………………………….4
California sex offender management Board January 2008 http://www.casomb.org/docs/sombreport1.pdf CA 3.5% table 3-2………………………………42
California sex offender management 2016 video https://youtu.be/GBoy2FB27yg…………………………..4
Hanson, Karl. Declaration from Doe v Harris U.S. District Court for Northern California 2012. https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/024_hanson_decl_11.7.12.pdf, [p.1-2] “Contrary to the popular notion that sexual offenders remain at risk of re-offending through their lifespan, the longer offenders remain offence-free in the community, the less likely they are to re-offend sexually. Eventually, they are less likely to re-offend than a non-sexual offender is to commit an “out of the blue” sexual offence. Offenders whose are classified as low-risk by Static-99R pose no more risk of recidivism than do individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crime. After 10-14 years in the community without committing a sex offense, medium-risk offenders pose no more risk of recidivism than individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crime. After 17 years without a new arrest for a sex-related offense, high risk offenders pose no more risk of committing a new sex offense than do individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crime. Based on my research, my colleagues and I recommend that rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.”…. “Research has even suggested that offenders may actually be made worse by the imposition of higher levels of treatment and supervision than is warranted given their risk level. Rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.” “Research has long shown that the longer an ex-offender remains free of arrests or convictions the lower the chance he will reoffend. In fact, most detected recidivism occurs within three years of a previous arrest and almost always within five years.”[p.8] [p.12]………………………………………………45, 46
This is just a fraction that I have accumulated. This is just CA and the Hanson report has been the gov’s go to source but which they conveniently leave out that passage.
Hey I wonder if anyone can find any other legislation where the legislators have stated “this is not meant to be retributive’ or this “is not to be consider punishment” ???? I am just curious if there is any other incidents out there…I don’t even think when passing gun legislation that it was stated “this is not meant to be punitive”
It appears that so-called “sexually violent predator” Jeffrey Snyder was rearrested in Fresno for violating the terms of his conditional release from Coalinga State Hospital where he had been caged for more than ten years. His offense? Having sex with an adult male without first having obtained permission from his overseers, “Liberty” HealthCare/CONREP, the company that contracts with California to supervise such people.
Looking at his arrest history, it’s extraordinary how little he had to do to be considered “sexually violent.”
http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/crime/article206067854.html
Felt like googling myself today. Another new site that shows my lovely face shows up. Newyorksexoffenders fantastic (sarcasm) so sick of these sites. Home facts removed their link because I don’t live in the US. But these sites keep popping up using really old info and pictures as well as new information and some information that doesn’t even belong to me.
This newest one has no way to contact the website or any links. But if anyone Google’s me it will be the first thing that pops up. Which wouldn’t be too good as I’m slowly becoming the public face in the company. Had to meet with an award council today because of some new business award. Their award ceremony is broadcast all over Asia. If I have to go on stage to accept it then that’s like game over for me.
The “recovered memories” at the heart of the Sandusky conviction. We need to be careful about using cases of the ostensibly most guilty and depraved in our efforts to distinguish ourselves from them. The same goes for the Catholic priests represented in the movie “Spotlight” which peddled calumnies by the Boston Globe and made its reporters into folk heroes. “TRIAL BY THERAPY: The Jerry Sandusky Case Revisited”
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/trial-by-therapy-jerry-sandusky-case-revisited