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


CT: Commission Considers Changes to State Sex-Offender Registry

Connecticut is steps closer to potentially changing the way the state’s sex-offender registry is managed.

The Connecticut Sentencing Commission is holding a public hearing Thursday and reviewing several proposed changes following a two-year study that began in 2015.

“There was concern in the legislature, I think, that maybe Connecticut could find a better way to deal with sex offender registration, sex offender management,” Superior Court Judge Robert Delvin, chair of the Connecticut Sentencing Commission, said. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. AO

    I always find it funny that peoples opinions are still considered, even after hard studies show facts to the contrary. Laws governed by feelings are the worst kind of laws.

    • Joe123

      Victimhood is the strongest force in the Universe, didn’t you know?

    • Will Allen

      You should post a comment at the article where someone might see it.

    • Frustrated

      I recall a line from of all shows “Law and Order” . it said “People make decisions based on emotion , not facts”. Just look at history…..Proabition, Marijuana, Gay lifestyles, the internment of Japanese citizens, sex offenders, the results are all the same.

  2. R M

    Connecticut Sentencing Commission homepage:

    Here’s the public hearing notice (12 pages):

    Here’s the proposal (204 pages):

    The notice includes an email address, postal address, and phone number if anyone wants to write but the hearing took place already (10am est) and I’m not sure if they’ll still take testimony. Briefly looking over the proposal… it looks a lot better than current law.

  3. AJ

    The State that brought us Smith v. Doe (AK) has ruled that exact same law is punitive under its state Constitution. The State that brought us Megan (NJ) has found no statistically valid difference before or after registries were enacted. The State that brought us Dept of Public Safety v. Doe (CT) is now considering risk-based assessments. It’s only taken 15-20 years, but seemingly the States are starting to see the light. Key word: starting.

  4. Mike

    I’m living in this state now and I’m hoping that something changes…and soon!

    • R M

      @Mike: Why just hope? Do something! Be proactive! I gave the contact information in a post above.

    • Will Allen

      Don’t just hope. Post a comment on that article and change the public discourse to be anti-Registry. Once the sheep see that it is not cool and PC to love the Registries any longer, the herd will change direction toward a new cliff. They are idiots.

  5. The Static-99R Is A Scam

    So instead of *punishing* a person based on the crime they committed (*because sex offender registration is punishment*), the state is recommending that one be punished based on the crime they MIGHT — and probably will NOT — commit.

    Where is the logic in using a “risk assessment,” when said assessment lumps all crimes together, without taking severity of crime into account, and making a vague prediction regarding the future (with no specification to either severity and/or even type of future offense).

    Risk-based registration sounds good in theory. But in practice, there are many dangers in relying on The Minority Report style, static-type, “tests.” However, the trend certainly is moving in the direction of Static-99R type pseudo science. And unfortunately, it will perhaps take many decades before at least some realize that there is no way 10 questions can predict the future.

    • AJ

      @The Static-99R Is A Scam:
      Between my historical reading and contemporary scanning of your thoughts, one thing has stuck out: you never offer a solution to the problems you raise. Mind you, I’m not talking about abolishing registries as the problem to be fixed, I’m talking about how to assess someone. Whether you or I like it or not, whether it’s a sex offense or some other offense, the court system (really, all of life) uses assessments. Though not labelled as an assessment, what do you suppose a Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) to be? Please enlighten me as to what methods and/or systems you find to be acceptable in order for society to make reasonable judgments (which is a synonym for “assessments”: in cases. I don’t believe I’ve ever come across such words from you.

      • Ricky Fitz

        Do not feed the trolls. AJ = troll

        • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          AJ’s not a troll so stop it. I’m beginning to see why he was reluctant to engage in this discussion. We lay out our respective points and then move on. Reasonable people get to disagree. Say what you have to say and then be done with it.

        • AJ

          @Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly:
          Thank you for the support, David. I appreciate it and it means a lot coming from someone I respect as I do you.

          Yes, this is the type of behavior that comes out of @The Static-99R Is A Scam/@Ricky Fitz/@Leslie C. anytime the triggers of “Static-99R” or “Hanson” arise. Do I know the three are one and the same? Absolutely not. However, I find it quite peculiar that two lurkers pop up out of nowhere and are able to spout the same venom, using the same syntax and vocabulary, as @The Static-99R Is A Scam. I find it beyond reason these two lurkers come out of the shadows over this topic, using those words. Furthermore, I’m rather certain I will not get an reply to my (rather simple) request of @The Static-99R Is A Scam.

          I may be snarky and/or a sarcastic SOB at times, but troll? No thanks, not my game.

          As I said above, I kicked the hornets’ nest. That’s certainly a decision I regret, only because it’s given this person back his/her platform. I apologize to all the kind people–and even some of the mean ones!–on here for that.

        • The Static-99R Is A Scam


          My solution is very simple. Declare sex offender registration as punishment. These risk assessment “tests” are intended only to obfuscate, complicate, and lead to more bureaucracy and “treatment” contracts (i.e. conflicts of interests, corruption, etc.).

          Also, I think it’s laughable that you think that some of us against the Static-99R Scams are “one of the same” merely because we share the same “type of behavior.” Are you basing your assumption on the type of speculation relied on by Karl Hanson’s pseudo science? From what I read, the few of us against this type of Minority Report “science” happen to share — and have adopted — the same very clear, basic, and logical arguments. Do the arguments against the Static-99R’s many flaws offend you so much that you resort to accusing others of the same type of behavior YOU (ironically) might be engaged in?

          As for me, I will continue to fight for the truth. I hope everyone else against the Scam-99R will do the same. Even if we lose at the end.

        • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          AJ: And I all had to do was to say that you weren’t a troll to get your respect? 🙂 Seriously, though you have one of the, if not THE, finest legal mind/s on this forum. Sorry I ever doubted you. Now back to that Static-99 business….

        • AJ

          @The Static-99R Is A Scam:
          “My solution is very simple. Declare sex offender registration as punishment.”
          It’s been my understanding that you’re objectively unhappy with the S-99R, but apparently not.
          So if registration is declared punishment, you’re fine with the Static-99R as the risk assessment tool the courts and States use? That (somewhat ironically) makes me think of a line from Romeo and Juliet: “A rose by any other name…”. Apparently for you, Static-99R will smell sweeter if it’s used to determine risk in regards to determining punishment.

          My question to you was what method of assessment you propose to *replace* your nemesis? To save your seeking my words from above, here they are verbatim:
          “Please enlighten me as to what methods and/or systems you find to be acceptable in order for society to make reasonable judgments (which is a synonym for ‘assessments’: in cases.”

          From your reply, it seems Static-99R is “acceptable in order for society to make reasonable judgments…in cases.” Got it, thanks.


          These risk assessment “tests” are intended only to obfuscate, complicate, and lead to more bureaucracy and “treatment” contracts (i.e. conflicts of interests, corruption, etc.).
          Aha! So you *are* aware of other risk assessment tests. So among them, which is more acceptable to you than Static-99R? Unless your answer is “none,” this shouldn’t be a tough question to answer. And if your answer truly is “none,” you’re deluded to think the justice system will operate any method of determining risk.


          Also, I think it’s laughable that you think that some of us against the Static-99R Scams are “one of the same” merely because we share the same “type of behavior.” Are you basing your assumption on the type of speculation relied on by Karl Hanson’s pseudo science?
          I’m happy to provide some levity in your life. From where I sit, you could use some to reduce that vitriol. As for how and where I base my assumption, I already said. So far, it’s holding.


          Do the arguments against the Static-99R’s many flaws offend you so much that you resort to accusing others of the same type of behavior YOU (ironically) might be engaged in?
          Nope, not in the least. Apparently you’ve missed where I said I hold no opinion one way or the other regarding the Static-99R. It neither offends nor amuses me. My only attraction to it is using its own data against it. I’m amazed you still cannot grasp that concept. Oh wait yes you can, because you’re all for its use if to the benefit of someone under supervision.


          As for me, I will continue to fight for the truth. I hope everyone else against the Scam-99R will do the same. Even if we lose at the end.
          Cheers, Don Quixote! Aside from your missives on here, please share how you are “continu[ing] to fight for the truth.” Are you drafting legislation and giving it to your representatives? Are you holding round tables with psychologists to hash out a plan of attack? Protesting outside courthouses? Writing letters to editors? Donating to causes? Please, do tell how you’re engaging the “fight.” Perhaps I or someone else here will join you.


          Je me suis lassé de cette discussion avec vous.

          If you’re unsure what that says, maybe ask Dr. Hanson, as Google Translate will botch the grammar. Being Canadian, he surely speaks French and can be good for something after all.

          Hint: Don’t expect me to read, reply, or engage you in any way, for any reason, henceforth.


        • The Static-99R Is A Scam

          Don’t worry, AJ. I do not expect you to reply — as I’ve replied to your arguments before. And your tactic seems to be that you run and hide when you are proven wrong in your points, only to come back at a later time to try the same type of rebuttals that hinge primarily on what seems like a mix of projection, as well as personal attacks against the poster.

          As for why it’s imperative that registration is declared as punishment; this is important because if registration were punishment, then it could be argued that it is cruel and unusual punishment in cases (as well as the fact that its ex post facto application would be banned). Without protections afforded, under the Constitution, to punishments (i.e. Eighth Amendment; Article 1, Section 9; Article 1, Section 10), then the government is able to impose all sorts of penalties, such as lifetime application to pretty much any crime — even when it is based off of an arbitrary “static” score that exceed the bounds of reason — as well as the other burdens of registration (i.e. employment, presence, residential, school restrictions).

          Furthermore, AJ, you force the impresson that a scored “risk” assessment, however flawed, is necessary in our Justice system — and that I would be “deluded” to assert otherwise. I disagree. The Justice system does not need pseudo science. You cannot simplify human behavior and human free will to the Static-99R’s 10 questions, then dumb-down a human being to a number, regardless of how many so-called “experts” seem to assert so.

          As for Fake Doctor Karl Hanson “being Canadian” and “surely” speaking French: this may or may not be true for Mr. Hanson particularly. But, again, your assumption is faulty — as far from all Canadians speak French. Again, AJ, is this the same type of assumptive logic that you base your support for the Scam-99R with?

          “In 2011, close to 10 million people reported being able to conduct a conversation in French, compared with less than 9.6 million in 2006. However, the proportion of those being able to speak French declined slightly to 30.1% in 2011, from 30.7% five years earlier.”

          Not all Canadians speak French.

        • Joe

          @The Static-99R Is A Scam – “My solution is very simple. Declare sex offender registration as punishment.”

          Good idea. Here goes….

          SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION IS PUNISHMENT. So declared by Joe, on 12/13/2018.

          So there. Your job is done. Mission accomplished. Good job!

        • The Static-99R Is A Scam


          Now your job would be to have a judge with controlling jurisdiction to sign an order stating that “SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION IS PUNISHMENT.”

          I’m glad we at least agree on that very important — and crucial — point. 😉

      • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

        I would think that any serious “assessment” tool would have to be based upon a personalized evaluation by a competent professional and not a checklist of the sort devised by Cosmopolitan Magazine that can be filled-out by a clerk (e.g. “Ten Ways Your Man Shows His Devotion To You”). That’s for starters. It should also be noted that no other crime category demands a risk assessment for such things as how long they belong on a government public registry with the power of life or social death.

    • RegisteredNotAnOffender

      Yikes lots of misinformation here.

      Risk based assessments while still supporting the registry are way better for offenders. Let’s say someone gets a rape 2nd degree 25 years ago then stays out of trouble for 10. An offense based system might always rank said person as A level three high risk offender. A sane person would note that said person has stayed out of trouble for 15 years and is not high risk.

      A risk based system does not use the static 99 or those used in a deviancy evaluation. In my state they use factors like number of victims, time elapsed since last offense, violent or non violent, known or unknown victim and whether you completed treatment or not. Then the law enforcement agency gives you a Risk level based on those factors.

      Thankfully I’m a level one and not on the public registry thanks to my states system. I still hate the registry but this would benefit some of my brothers in CT

      • Darren

        Are you in NYC?

      • The Static-99R Is A Scam

        “A risk based system does not use the static 99 or those used in a deviancy evaluation.”


        But that’s not the case in California. In California, the Static-99R IS the entire risk-based system (though dressed up as the SARATSO Tool).

  6. ma.concerned.citizen

    One of the comments in the comment section really stuck out to me. I actually feel this way about my kids, and not just because I’m on it:

    “I have a child and I’m much more worried about him being placed on this registry than getting molested by a registered citizen. I can pretty much watch over him as a child but as he matures it is a scary thought that he could make an error in judgement which might have him living under a bridge alone and afraid for the rest of his life.”

  7. David Higham

    Has anyone ever consider that this is a big business for everyone involved from counseling to probation and job security to the politicians that is why they do not want any of this to go away.

    • Will Allen

      Uhhhhhhhhhhh, yes.

      Once you’ve started giving out money for BS like this, people will fight to the end for it. The “corrections” industry is all about money. It is their primary motivation.

  8. AJ

    @Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly:
    And I all had to do was to say that you weren’t a troll to get your respect?
    That, and your mutual snappy demeanor. In truth, your knowledge and insight on many fronts has been and continues to be helpful, so you’ve had my respect for some time.

    Seriously, though you have one of the, if not THE, finest legal mind/s on this forum.
    Again, thank you…though I’m not sure if that’s a compliment to me or a cut to the rest on here! 😀

    All kidding aside, I’ve long (as in many decades) had an interest in constitutional law and were I to do life over again I would pursue it. I’d do it now except for the exorbitant cost of law school and no outlet for the knowledge gained.


    Sorry I ever doubted you.
    I didn’t take it as doubt. Once I understood you weren’t joining me in snark, I realized you were genuinely curious as to my position and thoughts. Thank you for asking for them, and please continue to do so, as I’m nowhere near always right or perfect.

  9. Chris f

    In regards to the conversations about risk assesment tools and what should be done….

    During the sentencing portion of the trial both sides should provide testimony of licensed professionals that interviewed the individual, the evidence, the history and any other supporting information and let the judge/jury decide what is needed to rehabilitate, punish, and protect the public like the courts did before registration schemes.

    If someone is a true threat, keep him locked up or under strict supervision. If not, let him re integrate with society.

    The legislation is fine to create tools, but it must be the judiciary that decides when the tools are needed and for how long on an individual basis.

    • CR

      Given the many studies that document very low sexual offense recidivism rates of people charged with sexual offenses, there is no more justification for engaging in extraordinary practices, like expensive licensed professional risk assessments, than there would be for any other offense. In every category of offense, there are some people who are more likely to re-offend than others. Why should people charged with a sexual offense be subjected to special risk assessment practices that are not engaged in for other categories of offenders?

      • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

        Agreed. For more about the utility of Static-99, Karen Franklin has a number of pieces, one of which is “Static-99 “norms du jour” get yet another makeover.” Brian Abbott, who serves as an expert psychologist for the defense, has also written extensively about the problems with the test. Going to Karen’s website and entering “static” in the search box yields a wealth of information by her and Abbott.

      • ReadyToFight

        I’ve been stewing about that same topic for the past week now.
        I’m in California and think we could see this crap topple once we bring this argument to light and the true recidivism rate is used going forward. Lies are powerful but the truth will set us free.
        I don’t want this for all but honestly how does anyone defend the fact that we are the ONLY group subjected to a public Registry and Not ALL Felons???

        • Will Allen

          It is not defensible. It is proof that the main reasons that the Registries exist are to make people feel good, enable harassment, and make people money.

          But the recidivism rate is irrelevant because the Registries do nothing but increase it. So it doesn’t matter if it is 5, 10, or 90 percent.

  10. mike r @Static

    The static 99R is not used for anything except to put high risk offenders into tier three and for parole. That is it. Nothing else. CASOMB and the state keep calling the new tiered system as some how risk based and it is not, it is offense based only except that they can put so called high risk scoring offenders in tier three. This is the case even though every individual in the state is evaluated using three tools, dynamic, static, and violence prediction. So the state already has the mechanism in place that is already implemented but they use it for everything except who is required to register and at what tier they are put in. The reason is obvious, if they use risk assessment tools more than half of the people on the registry would immediately be removed and the legislature will fight that like hell. This is the only reason that CASOMB recommended the tier system but even then they wanted to use risk assessment to place all lower risk offenders in the lower tiers and not have their addresses online.
    I love this citation and quote straight out of the horses mouth,
    “Other Hard Facts, Data, and Visuals
    Criminal offenders with no prior sex offense history are rearrested for a subsequent sex crime more often than low risk convicted sex offenders”

    • The Static-99R Is A Scam

      “The static 99R is not used for anything except to put high risk offenders into tier three and for parole. That is it. Nothing else.”


      You say it as if using junk “science” to place people into Tier 3 is no big deal. I beg to differ. Being placed into Tier 3, especially when it is based off of 10 stupid “static” questions, is a very big deal. This WILL lead to homelessness. This WILL lead to unemployment. This WILL cause harm to many people.

      As for “dynamic, static, and violence prediction,” indeed one of the “SARATSO Tool(s)” (as it is referred to in the Tiered Registry Bill) consist of other so-called “risk assessments” — including dynamic ones such as the LS/CMI.

      When a person scores “high” on the Static-99R, but very low to low on the LS/CMI, why are other “tools” — such as the LS/CMI — completely ignored by CASOMB, CDCR, and the SARATSO Committee? Why is little attention being given to the other dynamic assessments, whilst a “static test” is given 100% credibility and power to put people into Tier 3? Logically, you’d think that it would be more important to emphasis CURRENT, as opposed to past, risk.

      Static-99R = Past Risk at Time of Release into the Community

      Static-99R ≠ Dynamic ≠ Current Risk

      Again, the Static-99R is NOT dynamic. The Static-99R does not even advertise to fortune tell current risk (unless you were just recently released from incarceration — and TWO YEARS FROM RELEASE into the community). This is a concept that many people seem to omit when they drink the Karl Hanson Static-99R Kool Aid.

      Could it be that the other risk assessment tools do not EXAGGERATE like the Static-99R Scam?

      • Joe

        “You say it as if using junk “science” to place people into Tier 3 is no big deal. I beg to differ. Being placed into Tier 3, especially when it is based off of 10 stupid “static” questions, is a very big deal. This WILL lead to homelessness. This WILL lead to unemployment. This WILL cause harm to many people.”

        The Static-99 does not place anyone in Tier 3. The Static-99 does not address employment or residency. Stop making stuff up.

        Come 2021, the California legislature is placing those with a certain Static-99 score in Tier 3. This may indeed adversely affect some, perhaps many individuals – presumably you (ooops, all of you). At exactly the same time, (tens of) thousands of California registrants become eligible to petition off the registry. This WILL offer previously unthinkable relief to many people.

        Is it perfect? Certainly not. What is your solution? Scrap SB 384 and keep everyone lifetime, most people on the web site so you (ooops, all of you) can enjoy your anonymity and safety in numbers? No thank you.

        • Will Allen

          I read all of your recent comments. I like the facts and no emotions. They seem very well reasoned to me.

          But the tiering. Seems bad to me. I don’t live in CA and I would certainly think I would personally benefit from tiering. But I think it is bad.

          I do think it would be more morally correct if CA had 1,000,000 people Registered rather than 10,000 of the “worst”. I haven’t really thought much about how that would affect society though. Transforming 1,000,000+ people into citizens who have been relieved of their civic duties seems like a problem. But on the flip side, if it becomes a widespread “norm” that people ignore, it might calm everything down a bit.

          I just don’t think if we lower and lower and lower the number of people that we are harassing, that is necessarily better.

          I see parallels to that Amendment (4, I think) in Florida where they want to restore the voting rights for most felons. I kind of feel like the people who support that don’t deserve to vote themselves.

          I don’t know. I can definitely see both sides. But if you just stand by and don’t help people being harassed, then you are complicit. I guarantee you there are people who are Registered right now that don’t care about anything except getting themselves un-Registered and if/once that happens, they will join the mobs harassing the people remaining. Guaranteed. We already see true, true scumbags in prison who talk about how they are better than “$EX offenders”. Laughable.

        • Leilani

          I like the thoughts on letting a man define himself as straight or gay, but the male on male sex crime is enough for some anti-gay folks to then go on a punishment spree. In their minds, I think that is how they would determine if someone was gay. They would use the male on male sex crime as more of a basis then letting others self-define themselves I imagine.

        • The Static-99R Is A Scam

          Joe Says: “The Static-99 does not place anyone in Tier 3. The Static-99 does not address employment or residency. Stop making stuff up.”


          Not true, Joe. The Static-99R places people into Tier 3. To prove you wrong, refer to 290(d)(3)(D) of the Tiered Registry Law:

          “A tier three offender is subject to registration for life. A person is a tier three offender if any one of the following applies: The person’s risk level on the static risk assessment instrument for sex offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, is well above average risk at the time of release on the index sex offense into the community, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.”

          Joe and AJ is who are (ooops, who is) “making stuff up.” Again, this is classic projection by the “Doctor” Karl Hanson Kool Aid drinkers. As for the Static-99 addressing “employment or residency,” I never referred to the Scam-99R having an effect on employment or residency. If you read the context of my comment above, I was merely stating that because sex registration is NOT deemed punishment by the legislature and/or courts, that the government is free to impose all sorts of ex post facto and cruel and unusual punishments as a result of registration.

          Of course, nothing in the future would preclude the legislature from possibly imposing additional employment and residential restrictions on those that score “high” on Karl Hanson’s Static-99R scam. It’s perhaps just a matter of time…

        • LS

          The solution has already been stated. Make sure that the recent research is applied. Don’t scrap the entire SB 384.

  11. FinallyOffTheReg

    Let’s refocus a bit regarding the thread.

    There are salient points that are involved here regarding Connecticut. (Full disclosure, I was on the Reg in this State for 10 years as a “Level 1”. I was cycled off this past early Summer after fulfilling the requirements (SORNA). I received a formal letter from the Reg with Seal and affirmed signature removing me fully from the Reg and other data points.)

    1) For Connecticut, this is at least a step in some kind of right direction. It’s imperfect and perhaps a bit filled with too much reliance on Actuarial analysis from potentially a single source provider/report. However, it’s indicative of a recognition of the terribly punitive nature of a Registry to begin with. There at least is the opening of minds to a process of “Due Process” in the works. I think that’s encouraging. Is that process fraught with some real issues surrounding what the thread is arguing? Yes, yes it is. But, it’s a CHANGE in the right direction that I hope and pray will be tweaked and revised in the coming time.

    2) Both State and Feds here in Connecticut rely on basically ONE provider for all persons’ required to undergo “Treatment”. There is a Contract in place for both entities that the primary provider must be this particular entity. The entity does all the Polygraphs, all the assessments and all of the treatment, as well all of the alleged analysis of Risk, etc. I feel strongly that this creates a financial incentive for this entity to “enslave” persons with data that is incorrect, malicious (God help the one that actually has a good head on his shoulders and is able to call BS regarding their techniques) and downright dangerous. Feds pay a higher per session amount than State and it has been clear those “Fed Dollars” are mighty precious to the bottom line. UCONN Health was doing the “Treatment” for those incarcerated and going through a Program. UCONN was “*hitcanned” and the aforementioned entity got the “no bid contract”. Hmmmmm.

    3) The NARSOL Affiliate here in CT is very very active in calling out the BS on all levels. In fact, previous open hearings in CT were highly represented by the Affiliate in terms of the push-back regarding, among other things, the composition of folks on the proposed “Review Board” in that it appeared to be too one-sided and curved towards the Victim Advocate.

    4) Finally, and this is just my opinion: Any way that can move persons towards at least some kind of process to address the Registry in his or her State is a move that is positive.

    Summary: Yes, I agree with the thread that the baseline metric (Static-99) is a POS. However, CT is at least realizing there has to be a better way. Now, I don’t give a hoot about the opinion of the “Concerned Community Activist Soccer Mom” who has more of an irrational fear of a registered citizen than is even addressable. Moreover, I feel strongly such an opinion of those “chills” the discussion on any level and, as at the opening statement on this thread, creates a fear-based response versus a real-world analysis. Yes, the Actuarial tools are imperfect. But isn’t it up to us RC’s to finally and fully take control of our own situation both individually, educationally and arm ourselves with the immutable will to finally call out the BS? I think incremental victories are so terribly important. Let’s at least pull all those together into a cogent and factual base-line “Sword of Truth” that we can arm ourselves with. Trust me, the Powers That Be hate that we can do that.

    Connecticut is at least exploring the issue and is at least addressing it. I am hopeful, yes I am hopeful that it will provide incremental opportunities for some to be de-listed and have that incredible letter sent affirming so. I am also hopeful that the CT NARSOL Affiliate will continue to be that incredible strong voice and I am sure that will be the case.

    I hope my thoughts/comments are not seen as an Op-Ed. Just that I wanted to share with folks and I am always open to discussion.

    • AJ

      Thank you for your wonderful post. You were both informative and inspiring.

      As you touched on, we’re making incremental progress. I think it important that we step back and consider that. Think back just 2-3 years ago. Things were looking and seeming bleak and nearly hopeless.
      No Snyder decision. No Muniz decision. No Packingham decision. No Rankin working through the 10th to an almost certain SCOTUS appeal. No CT “meeting of the minds.” No Bethea pending at SCOTUS. No Boyd pending at SCOTUS.

      While there’s no guarantee about those last three, wins have come and will continue to come as the results snowball. Continue to have faith, ladies and gentlemen.

    • E

      Thank you indeed, Finally. I agree with AJ and am grateful you’re still in the fight, despite being off.

  12. ReadyToFight

    @Will Allen
    Yeah, I get what you’re saying totally.
    It’s the “Frightening & High” BS I want to stomp out.
    Idk about you but I’d like to go to war with the Registry Supporters/ Enforcers before another 20 Years pass by.

    • Will Allen

      Yes, I can see why if a person sees “frightening and high” that they would think “we’ve got to know where THOSE people are”. So yea, I’m sure it’s best that everyone believes that the recidivism rate is low. But I think that every single time anyone says anything about the recidivism rate that it should be added that the rate is completely irrelevant, because the Registries increase it.

      I’m not sure what this has to do with going to war? I’ve been at war for over 20 years. I think a large problem is that most people who are on the Registries have not gone to war and are too afraid to do so. They want to hide, talk among each other only, and wait decades for courts to only sort of fix some of the most egregious problems. That is what I’m not waiting around decades for.

      I take the problems of the Registries straight to the doorsteps of everyone and make sure that everyone is negatively affected by it. I don’t allow people to sit back and just ignore the Registries and what these criminal regimes are doing. Because that is what most people want to do. They don’t want to have to care about it or have it affect them. So you have to make it affect them.

      I take every opportunity that I see to make sure people know it’s affecting them. I don’t do any significant business with any company until I find out that their owners and principals think the Registries are nonsense. If I find out the opposite, I tell them why I won’t do business with them. I don’t think most Registered People even use the Registries to hire people and companies. That is simply a minimal amount of effort.

      I had some harasser call me just yesterday and ask about contributing to some firemen’s fund whatever. I told them about the Registries and that I wouldn’t be giving them anything. It is a very, very small thing. But that person very likely could tell 5 other people that story. Etc., etc., etc. And the alternative is to sit around and let the Registries exist in peace.

  13. FinallyOffTheReg

    Thanks AJ and E.

    Yes AJ, small drops of water in the Victory Bucket amount to a Flood. Some States had better get their waders. 🙂

    Here is a direct link (and yes its free) to the Article in the CT paper that gets a little more explanatory. Again, yes I agree with previous illustrative posts in that the “risk assessment” portion is a little frightening. In that regard, it’s not clear which entity would be in-charge of those assessments and what methodology would be used for a RC to contest, etc. Seems to be another “no bid” scenario (see previous post).

    But as one can see from the Article, the local NARSOL Team is doing an August Job on fighting back with real concerns.

  14. Ricky Fitz

    You people are running around in circles because at the end of the day, there is absolutely no way 10 test questions predict a *specific person’s* future. Period.

    As for the Static 99R Scam’s validity, yes, Karl Hanson’s Coding Rules are specific to it only being valid for two years from a person’s release. But as the informed people already know, Hanson’s goons from CASOMB and Carleton University are actively creating “new research” to extend the Scam 99R’s validity to over 10 years into the future. See, they too are engaged in incrementalism tactics—except they (Karl Hanson and his goons) are using it to further their goal of dishonesty and corruption. There are no guarantees in life; but I can say that my gut is saying that Hanson’s next Coding Rules will proclaim that the Static 99R Scam is valid for 10, 15, and maybe even 20-plus years out for the ostensibly “high” risk. Make no mistake, Karl Hanson’s goons will even craft another chart with fancy blue lines to make their pseudo science seem legit. And people in this organization will probably proudly hold up Karl Hanson’s chart proclaiming it to be gospel. And people will believe the Karl Hanson bs.

    For those of you who have read the tiered legislation (Senate Bill No. 384), there is a good chance that you have underestimated the almighty powers given to Karl Hanson’s “Coding Rules.” As someone had mentioned here a few months ago, there is a reason why the Static 99R is not specifically mentioned in SB 384—and why the Static 99R Scam is vaguely referred to as the SARATSO instrument in the tiered registration legislation. Not directly stating “Static 99R” was not an omission by error, but it is an intentional act of dishonesty by SB 384’s writers—so that the bureaucrats in CASOMB and SARATSO can continuously “change it up,” leaving everyone else a step behind in exposing the “new,” flawed, static pseudo science risk assessment.

    We live in a new, sad, and troubling era of government dishonesty and mistruths. In California, when it comes to sex offenders, CASOMB and SARATSO are literally the state’s propaganda ministries. CASOMB and SARATSO lead the way in spreading the Static 99R propaganda. Just as they do with the other fake sciences that they push and stand behind. Remember, CASOMB is a huge supporter of the polygraph—even when the polygraph is unequivocally proven to be complete pseudo science that is relied mainly to intimidate people into confessing (hence its inflated accuracy rates).

  15. Aman

    Just got back from California, and I see that we are all still just posting to ourselves about what some states are looking at, what they did wrong, what “might” help us all in the looooooong run and how stupid the registry is. The basic problem will remain the same until we, yes we DO SOMETHING! Great….. Ct. is looking at making changes to the registry and it’s management, so what! when you get around to reading the part that states how the victims input will be a strong factor (paraphrasing) then you will see how futile the whole thing is. As long as victims have a majority say (and they do, and always will) in any legislative action then the result will always be the same. I am not casting any dispersions on those who have in fact been victimized in ANYway, but the sad fact is that those who have been so deeply hurt carry even deeper emotions that spill out onto the legislative process. We need to retool our machine and start combating our situation from a whole new direction. The people need to know the real truth of what is happening here, they need to know the facts of who we are why we are not what everyone keeps saying we are. Hoping for some state somewhere to maybe make a small change to the registry here and there is not going to fix the problem! All legislation concerning sex offenders is driven by the people, the people and the people, period. We are all angry, we are all scared but we all share one very important and very powerful weapon……the truth. Elected officials serving for terms or for life will do us NO good until the people start changing their attitude towards us, and the ONLY way that will ever happen is if WE show them how and why they need to. I refuse to believe that I am the only one of some 900,000 of us that is willing to take to the streets in peaceful demonstrations to bring the truth to light to the voting public. Scary….yes, risky…..absolutely, but teetering on the brink of losing everything everyday while doing nothing to help ourselves is far worse. I really hate to have to say this, but we deserve what we get if all we do is just sit around in our little pools of self righteous despair, telling ourselves how stupid and wrong everyone else is. Change public opinion…..change the laws. I realize that many out there are afraid of losing what standing they may have in the community, but the next victim that appears on television could very easily be the driving force that destroys us all, causing us to lose what little we have overnight. Think about it…….please!

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 *