ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings 2019 [details]
Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles) 12/22 [details]

Registration Laws for all 50 States

National

GA: City Council passes emergency ordinance banning homelessness

With an outcry from neighbors about recently released sex offenders living under a nearby bridge, the Ringgold City Council unanimously passed an emergency ordinance banning homelessness Monday night. Full Article

Related

COLUMN: Georgia City Wrong to Target Sex Offenders in New ‘Homelessness Ordinance”

Join the discussion

  1. Eric

    This would be funny if it weren’t so tragic and if it wasn’t destroying people. The city creates a registry, the city creates laws so people on that registry can’t live anywhere, they city is creating a law to jail people who don’t have anywhere to live due to those laws they created. To add to the insanity, probation is placing the people under the bridge because they have nowhere to release them do to the strict residency restrictions imposed by the city, now the city is shocked to find out probation is placing people under the bridge, and everyone is wondering why people on the registry are living under a bridge unsupervised. Could I safely interpret this as everyone involved here is basically saying the public registry is cluster freaking ineffective sadly laughable disaster doing more harm than good? can I surmise that?

    • Dustin

      @ Eric,

      Yeah, I’d say that’s a reasonable interpretation.

      Particularly laughable is the councilwoman trying to claim the ordinance doesn’t criminalize homelessness. 60 days in jail or $1000 fine (like the homeless can pay that but refuse to put a roof over their own heads) for violation sounds like a criminal sanction to me, especially considering that that’s the maximum sanction that can be imposed in city or county ordinances in Georgia.

  2. R M

    Email sent to the author Tyler Jett (tjett@timesfreepress.com 423-757-6476).

    Dear Mr. Jett,

    I am writing in regards to the article you wrote on Ringgold’s choice to “ban” sex offenders and all homeless people from the city.

    First, society has been led to believe sex offenders have a high recidivism rate. This is false.

    Robert Longo wrote the original 1986 non-scientific Psychology Today article stating “frightening and high” recidivism rates to be as high as 80% (35 to 80). Barbara Schwartz wrote the Department of Justice manual cited by the Supreme Court but admits she just “made up a model”. The article had 6 references including the dictionary. The “best we were doing is guesses” she says.

    https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000005415081/a-frightening-myth-about-sex-offenders.html?src=vidm

    Second, the recidivism rate is at most 4.6% and in many states is as low as 1%.“

    A. US Bureau of Justice Statistics Report published in 2003 declared that after analyzing the records of nearly 10,000 convicted sex offenders, only 4.6% of them were found to have had a previous conviction involving a sex crime against a child victim. Thus over 95% of new sex crimes against children are committed by someone who has no previous record of being convicted of a sex offense against a child.”

    http://www.casomb.org/docs/Residence_Paper_Final.pdf (There are at least 17 reports/studies that conclude the same stats)

    Third, I do realize that you are just a reporter but why not look into some facts before you report and then question those you interview? Or are you just an ignorant uninformed person of society doing a job?

    If society and Ringgold want to truly help society and be safer, end the public registry (which was originally intended for law enforcement only) and then the unfounded fear and hysteria will cease.

    Sincerely,
    [me]

    • Eric

      Thanks for that amazing post, and unlike the journalists, you included researched data. Well done.

    • R M

      Mr. Jett actually wrote back saying “Thanks, [me]. I have been doing a lot of research and in particular found this piece very helpful. Unfortunately I am not able to dive very deep on a fast deadline with some stories, but I am working on a more thorough about the issue.

      Please do not hesitate to send along to me any more information you find pertinent.”

      • AJ

        @R M:
        Well done on the letter to the journalist. Given his request to send along anything more you have, perhaps the before/after study done in NJ showing the uselessness of ML would be helpful…especially since NJ is Ground Zero of ML. The URL for info about the study and the study PDF itself is: https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/community/sex-offenders/pages/new-jersey-study.aspx

        • R M

          @AJ: Thanks, I’m still debating whether to write him back as I am still debating whether he is genuine in his request. I more than likely will put together a much longer response with cites and synopsis.

          @ everyone: As a side note, has anyone else contacted this author?

      • R M

        Mr. Jett wrote back again:
        “Right now, I’m most interested in the history of sex offender restrictions. How they began and why. Who were the forces pushing for the change.”

        My response:
        “Hi Mr. Jett,

        There are plenty of websites, court cases, books, college classes, historians, psychologists, doctors, governments, etc. that will answer your question. Which ones you believe depends on whether you want the truth or want to continue the fear and hysteria that our government has instilled into society.

        Remember history as it was taught in schools and then look at which ones have later been debunked, found false, outright lies, or covered up. Those such as Nazi Germany, the Vietnam War, covert operations done by the US government, forcing American Indians from their land by force, the imprisonment of Japanese citizens during WWII, slavery, gay/lesbian rights, the right for women to vote, segregation, Tuskegee study on black males, using animals to experiment on (including humans), and recruiting Nazis to live in the US, just to name ones off the top of my head.

        Now, think about how America has always NEEDED something to hate (see above examples) and believed/believes whatever was told to them (whether true or not). In the past it was radio, then television, and now of course social media, YouTube, and other websites. Couple those with gossip and you can see how the truth gets biased by whatever is providing the answers.

        The United States has always “tried” to protect its citizens. We failed miserably. We have never won a war, have the most imprisoned, have hatred among ourselves, violate peoples rights consistently, and add new laws even if they are unconstitutional leaving it up the people to fight them. We fed peoples minds with what WE wanted them to believe. Everyone does that; it’s called an opinion.

        The sex offender registries and punishments/restrictions are the new “ways” to make society “safer” and to “protect” our children. They don’t work period.

        As far as your response, “I’m most interested in the history of sex offender restrictions. How they began and why. Who were the forces pushing for the change.” goes, the TRUTH is available. IF you want to question all of the lies fed to you by our government and its associated money making organizations about sex offenders (commonly known as registered citizens), here are a few places to start:

        ACSOL, Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offender Laws, https://all4consolaws.org/
        NARSOL, National Association for Rational Sex Offender Laws, https://narsol.org/
        SOSEN, Sex Offender Solutions & Education Network, https://sosen.org/

        There are quite a few others, but these will get you started. If you truly want to report the truth, it will take time though, lots of time. You’re welcome to contact these groups as I’m sure they will be more than happy to lead you in your quest.

        Sincerely,
        [me]

        • AJ

          @R M:
          Well done on continuing and nurturing the conversation with him. It sounds as though he does truly want to dig deeper into it. The sources you supplied him are great, and I think he can also benefit from government studies. Heck, maybe even direct him to SMART’s own words that we’re a heterogeneous group. The more he can be shown that even government studies–outside the political realm–show it all to be nowhere near the advertised fear and problem, I think the more likely he’ll be a “convert.” As you said to him, there is a LOT of information out there…which means it’ll be a fine line to avoid overwhelming him.

          Finally, keep in mind that you’re not only educating him, but almost assuredly others with whom he talks. That will certainly include media types, which can only work to our favor.

        • R M

          @AJ: Yeah, I didn’t want to overwhelm him with info. It’s up to him as a journalist to investigate and I just wanted to point him in the right direction. If he asks, I can provide tons of research. He did say in a previous response that “Unfortunately I am not able to dive very deep on a fast deadline with some stories…”, so I’ll respond as needed. I took 4 days for me to respond to his last reply so I won’t apply (too much) pressure. There was one article/post that I saw not too long ago that was a great write-up on the history of sex offender restrictions but I haven’t found it yet. Anyone?

  3. My say

    Well, it could be worse. At least they didn’t make it illegal for A registrant to register. With “failure to register” being a felony, it would automatically make a “registrant registering” A felony also. I think I will pick Florida as my guess for what state will try it first.

    (full of sarcasm) (except the Florida bit)

  4. USA

    Wow! This is very disturbing! They ban offenders from living in certain areas and making it very difficult to become employed, yet they complain when the individual becomes homeless? Wouldn’t it be easier to assist these people with employment/trades, help them obtain housing and become assets to society? I see how the US goes to foreign countries, help those in need, but yet they don’t help their own? Disturbing! California might be the worst! It’s now time to look at things in an alternative manner! I’m a Republican, but I think the new Governor (liberal) will do things differently. As I’ve already mentioned, this is a HUGE opportunity to instill new laws or amendments to SB 384! You guys can post all of the case law you want, but that will take years! We should be adding Amendments to this bill where: ie: no arrests? Additional convictions? Etc, a judge must grant it? I truly believe this bill is a winner and it’s going to be similar to getting a 17B or expungement! They might be able to deny it for 1 year etc, but the requirements (as opposed to a COR) will change. This should be our #1 Priority!

  5. Eric

    The more I think about this it appears to be a calculated strategy to keep the undesirables locked up. They are not allowed to live anywhere and then they are arrested and jailed for not living somewhere.

  6. Eric

    Ok, here is a link to the presidents talk on the new prison reform bill. It is an impressive talk by President Trump. The theme is that people who make a mistake in the United States get a second chance. He emphasizes opportunities at fair housing, training and jobs. All of which are currently withheld form those on the registry, and as is certainly seen in this article on denying housing and then jailing those same people for not having a place to live.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am9cnBVePpI

    • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

      “(D) INELIGIBLE PRISONERS.—A prisoner is ineligible to receive time credits under this paragraph if the prisoner is serving a sentence for a conviction under any of the following provisions of law: …

      “(xxiii) Any section of chapter 109A, relating to sexual abuse, except that with regard to section 2244, only a conviction under subsection (c) of that section (relating to abusive sexual contact involving young children) shall make a prisoner ineligible under this subparagraph.

      “(xxiv) Section 2251, relating to the sexual exploitation of children.

      “(xxv) Section 2251A, relating to the selling or buying of children.

      “(xxvi) Any of paragraphs (1) through (3) of section 2252(a), relating to certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors.

      “(xxvii) A second or subsequent conviction under any of paragraphs (1) through (6) of section 2252A(a), relating to certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography.

      “(xxviii) Section 2260, relating to the production of sexually explicit depictions of a minor for importation into the United States.

      • TS

        That language on the ineligible prisoners is a Chris Smith echo and also the Jeff Sessions Memorial language text, IMO.

      • Eric

        Ok, so only sect people who make mistakes get a second chance. I guess he left that out of the speech.

  7. Dustin

    Another thing overlooked:

    “In response to neighbors’ complaints, a DCS spokeswoman sent the Times Free Press a “frequently asked questions” form designed for Ringgold residents which includes a statement that the agency is not required to inform neighbors about a sex offender living nearby.”

    Wasn’t the registry supposed to BE that notification? A lot of states require separate community notification when registrants move in – isn’t that redundant to the registry? Doesn’t that just further demonstrate the uselessness of at least the public registry?

  8. David

    The city council could have banned ignorance ….. instantly putting themselves in violation!

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 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 *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *