ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Jan 16 Recording Uplaoded Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings


Sex offenders need not apply

[ – 6/22/18]

By Mike W . . . At our core we cherish opportunity and equality as key American values. They define us. They make us who we are. Any obstacle that inhibits opportunity and equality is not only a major barrier; it is discrimination when it limits people unnecessarily. When discrimination is a barrier to opportunity, we have a responsibility to eliminate it. We must not tolerate discrimination in any form.

One of these barriers to opportunity and equality is the sex offender registry. The registry is a double whammy to those trying to be effective citizens. One is the conviction, then on a published list outlining the offence – some that are decades old. Larry Hill, 34, of Mt. Pleasant, MI, knows this process too well. In 12 weeks’ time he applied to 62 different companies trying to get a position as a truck driver. Larry completed several months in jail, time on probation, and therapy which presented the tools needed to ensure the likelihood of re-offense is greatly reduced. None of the 62 companies have given him a second chance after seeing he was listed on the registry. “It’s hard, ya know? I’ve been clean and sober for over 5 years, and paid my debt, made my amends. You think that would count for something.”

In fact, putting people on a registry eliminates opportunity and equality in that it:

Focuses on the worst moments of people’s lives rather than the present;
Fails to account for what rehabilitation was completed;
Neglects to explain how those injured were compensated;
Lacks any accounting of what positive actions were taken post-offence;
Discounts any improvements made such as getting an education, supporting a family, participating in the community, etc.;

Read more


Join the discussion

  1. AO

    The only way things will change for good now and in the future, is if we start requiring the legislature to back any and all laws with empirical evidence. No more of this judicial review BS of “if it sounds right, it must be right”. Until this becomes a standard, it won’t matter what SCOTUS or any other court rules as politicians will continue doing the same crap if not to us, then to others. No other industry allows this. And we certainly shouldn’t allow it in the one place where it can effect 100% of the population.

  2. j

    why not pass a bill to not conduct background checks? thats a huge problem as is, a individuals situation whatever it may be (could have) been done decades back with not another single offensive charge, plus a individual may have a higher education, a family which he struggles to provide, but once a company sees the results *sorry* no need to apply.

    • AO

      The problem with that is Google. These days you can do a loose background check yourself and go with that. And there wouldn’t really be a way to prove that that was the reason you were denied a job.

      • Michael

        You couldn’t do an accurate background check without a social security number. My last name is not common, yet an online search reveals about 10 people with my first and last name across 4 states and two countries. Which one of us is applying for that job? Considering the application process has moved online for the most part, there is no way to know who is actually applying. An employer is more likely likely to discriminate based on age purely by your education reference(s). It’s not hard to figure out that a person who graduated from high school in 1980 is at least 55.

        At any rate, you are right about there not being a way to prove why you were denied employment, or at the very least, why you were not asked to interview for the position.

    • Debo

      Forcing people to do the right thing never works especially if the gov is doing it people find ways around it. The only solution is to get the professionals to make a fair assessment of a person and present this evidence to a jury to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt not a judge with clear and convincing, we have a due process right because the reg is punitive plain and simple. The problem is the public has been subject to fear mongering BS too long so making a fair decision on this needs to be heavily influenced by a professional assessment from both sides. And once you are deemed a danger to society this way its game over. In PA they have people shown to have a personality disorder that makes them dangerous without due process the courts ruled it has to be proven without a reasonable doubt at trial. There is a small percentage of SVPs verses others. It would be interesting to see what the jury would do and which way that percentage would go if left in their hands.

      • Gralphr

        The problem with the SVP label is in many cases people get labeled due to the age of the minor alone, not because they kidnapped, beat, ,or did anything different than someone convicted of a crime with a minor somewhat older. When I think of SVP, I think of Jeffery Dahmer or some repeat rapist/molester.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          There are some very recent studies showing that younger kids reported fewer emotional consequences from these experiences than did older ones, flying in the face of received wisdom and the intellectual basis for “SVP by reason of age-of-victim.” Of course, any such scientific findings risk their funding and any governmental support as we saw in the swift Congressional condemnation of a respected, peer-reviewed study in 1998. Also, the use of violence or coercion consistently predicts more negative outcomes in virtually all studies. The use of force is, by far, the most relevant factor, not the age of the young person. Again, this is data that the current hysteria cannot tolerate and we can see why.

        • Tim Moore

          David, please list the studies? What you say makes perfect sense to me on an intuitive level, but would like to have source on empirical evidence of this.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          Tim, Here are two of the studies:

          A table from that study of participants rating of experience in terms of “enjoyment:”

          11 years: 85 % (n=26)
          12 years: 73 % (51)
          13 years: 72 % (65)
          14 years: 61 % (71)
          15 years: 63 % (60)
          16 years: 58 % (36)
          17 years: 59 % (41)

          The earlier paper, first published by the American Psychological Association (APA) in July, 1998: “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples” (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 124 (1): 22–53. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.22. PMID 9670820.

          Commentary about the controversy:

          Also, you may want to take a look at Harvard Psychologist Susan Clancy’s “The Trauma Myth,” the book that compelled her to leave the U.S. out of fear.

        • Tim Moore

          Very complex. What I think is going to help is when we define what a healthy brain is and does and can actually measure damage to the brain.There was long term emotional damage in my particular case to victim especially, but others, too. I have no doubt of that. I never want to initiate that again. On the other hand, no one seems to be quantifying the collateral damage done by society’s response to the crime, what part that plays in mitigating or enhancing the damage. It is assumed by the patriarchal and matriarchal stance of government that its intervention only mitigates victim harm, prevents further harm and corrects offender behavior. That’s pretty much dogma, and the harm thing fuels the dogma. Any other idea deviates from that will remain taboo for awhile.

  3. Tired

    Enough, sex offenders are unfairly targeted by unfair laws. Are you saying only sex offenders may re-offend because of mental issues? So a murderer has no mental issues? I have a friend who has done 13 years in prison from 3 different charges of felony battery, some with weapons some not, and he keeps going back for the same stuff. He is not on any registry, or any others like him and could be on your fucxxxx cruise ship, just don’t look at him sideways he will probably beat the #2 out of you. Where is the end of registries, a drug user will lie cheat steal from their own mom or children, even use violence to get their high, but you let them on a cruise……gang members…..organized crime bosses… I want a registry of aids infected people so I can feel safe, i want a registry of she’ll shocked soldiers so that I don’t get too close or so that I can block one from living next to me, what happens if they commit suicide and a stray bullet enters my home, or they get spooked by my significant other coming home late one night, she is middle eastern…..i want them on a registry

    • Will Allen

      You are exactly right.

      You shouldn’t try to make sense of the $EX Offender Registries ($ORs) because they make no sense. They are based on emotions and not facts.

      No real American can support Registering people who have been convicted of a $EX crime and not Registering everyone convicted of any serious crime. No real American can support a government list of people to whom all sorts of different punishments/harassment/restrictions can be applied to later at any time by any government. No American can support that stuff.

      So do always remember that. Americans can’t support the $ORs. People who do are nothing but harassing terrorists who cannot mind their own business or leave other families alone. They get off on harassing people. They are war criminals. Remember that those people are no different than any other war criminals that have come before them. They won’t do the right thing, they must be dealt with via war.

  4. ptdusn

    I’m glad someone is finally bringing this issue to light. The background check has been a major factor in preve ting me from getting a good job paying well. I am an electronics tech with vast experience. Since my conviction in 2001, I haven’t been able to find a job paying more than $12 an hour, until recently.
    I was able to get a job as a QA manager through a staffing agency making $26 an hour!! During the hiring process, I disclosed my conviction as requested on the application and was told by the recruiter that I was good to go and got hired. Several months later I was terminated due to “a red flag” on my background check.
    When I talked to the owner I was given some bs reason that they did a routine audit and they had “missed” my conviction. Unfortunately, where I live, it’s a right to work State so have no grounds for a wrongful termination suit.
    What NEEDS to be done is get rid of the immediate background check, delay it for 90 days and look at the person’s performance.

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 *