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

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

49 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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.

Connecticut Sentencing Commission homepage: http://ctsentencingcommission.org/

Here’s the public hearing notice (12 pages): http://ctsentencingcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/PublicHearingNotice.pdf

Here’s the proposal (204 pages): http://ctsentencingcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Sex_Offender_Report_December_2017.pdf

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.

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.

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

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.

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.”

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.

@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.

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.

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”

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.

@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.

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.

https://www.journalinquirer.com/crime_and_courts/changes-may-be-made-to-sex-offender-registry/article_a1287c52-fa3c-11e8-8145-7b28b420014b.html

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).

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!