The purpose of the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry is to keep track of where dangerous sex offenders are, but what if they have no address? That’s the case with ____ ____, who was arraigned Tuesday, accused of kidnapping two twelve-year-old sisters in Cambridge before they were able to break free. He’s listed on the Sex Offender Registry as “homeless” in Boston. Full Article
Related posts
-
MA: Former Mass. city councilor accused of having explicit images of a child apparently joined Russian army
Source: wbur.org 4/11/24 A U.S. Air Force veteran who fled a charge of possessing sexually explicit... -
MA: A father did everything he could to protect his son. Until he couldn’t.
Source: bostonglobe.com 2/22/24 BRAINTREE — Kevin Berner hung up the phone and — in a daze... -
MA: Reforms are sorely needed at Sex Offender Registry Board
Source: dotnews.com 11/8/23 Serving as Massachusetts state auditor doesn’t just mean reviewing finances. A big part...
Just more of the “necessary” proof of the original intent behind the electronic regime. To utilize datahases. It always were a blacklist. Popular or not.
SCOTUS itself disputes the first line in the piece. “Dangerousness” was NOT in play in the regime. So her work begins on false declaration in purpose. Fake news covers results but ignores cause because they’re “data brokers” in their own right. Thus restrictive disclosure laws concerning sex offenders used to be unlawful under statute for ” unauthorized information sharing” 175.45(6)1993WI act98. The status quo today is the inverse via 301.45.
The old law was a roadblock to the agenda of the surveillance saints.
Wait. He was a registrant and being required to register didnt stop the crime? And having an ankle bracelet would have stopped this how? Besides of course it would be unreasonable under the 4th amendment.
Why was a anti-registrant group sought for comment but a pro-registant group was not?
There’s a million of us, if 1% of registrants sent this place an email with the data that shows this doesnt help, I wonder if things would slowly change?
Not to mention more wisdom from Wendy Murphy:
“This is the type of criminal who wants to do anything but tell us where they are,” said victims’ advocate Wendy Murphy. “Yet we’re giving them the power to game the system.”
She is pushing for a solution. “If you say that you live in a place that isn’t on a map, or any one of these other tricks, then you should have to live on a bracelet, you should have a GPS device attached to your body.”
Of course, all us registrants have complete control over those who make the maps. We don’t need jobs or places to live (on maps or otherwise) because we’re all supernatural beings whose only purpose in life is to commit sex offenses and scoff at your inability to stop us! MMMMUAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
It would be comical if she didn’t so ardently believe it.
@ AJ: I never thought about that, and am kicking myself. If registrants inevitably re-offend as portrayed, you’re absolutely right. Compare to pre-registry studies that show the same recidivist rates and voila, more proof that the registry is useless.
Isn’t it interesting that the government is willing to pay law enforcement overtime to check on homeless registrants. What if the government paid the same amount of money to house the same homeless registrants?