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


IN: County considers sex offender fee

The Jackson County Commissioners plan to discuss creating an annual fee for work associated with maintaining the county’s sex offender registry. …

Commissioners were receptive to the idea. Commissioner Drew Markel said he would like to see offenders pay their fees like those who serve sentences on probation. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Henry

    This is going too far! This is just pure “extortion” sanctified through the state. None of us who are off paper should be required to pay the state to incarcerate us. I hope that the Registered Citizens of Indiana will band together and fight this.

    Damn, am I talking to a wall???

  2. Will Allen

    It is theft. Okay though because smart people are costing these criminal regimes piles of money every day. The “$EX offender” witch hunt is a war that they lost long, long ago. But they are too stupid to know it and too arrogant to care. They’ll keep paying. Amerika will just have to keep sucking.

    I think the funny thing about this is that I believe that the more successful, well-off, educated, healthy, etc. that a person is, the less likely that it is that the person support Registries. The people who are really suffering from the effects of the Registries – dysfunctional government, a ineffective police state, and the devolution of Amerika – are the people who can deal with that least. The people who support the Registries are the most likely to suffer and that is deserved.

  3. Harry

    “…like to see offenders pay their fees like those who serve sentences on probation.” Is she saying that being on the registry like probation? Okay, lawyers highlight this statement for courts to see.

  4. Eric

    They just keep heaping on the abuse, restrictions, oppression, and cost. This will be good in the end because it is impossible to say that people on the registry aren’t getting harsher and more excessive punishment than any other group. Unequivocal discrimination of a minority class.

  5. Gralphr

    I lived in Indiana at one time and they kept trying to get me to pay their “fee”. I always told them I’d pay next time, but of course they wouldn’t ask next time so I didnt pay. How is making someone pay a fee, possibly for the rest of their life not a punishment? I dont care if it was $1, you were not sentenced to pay money to anything for the rest of your life. It’s just one more item to be included when this stuff eventually makes it to the supreme court.

    • steve

      “To me, it’s like it’s free to live in Jackson County as a sex offender right now, and I don’t want that to happen,”

      FU…so many statements in this that make this seem like a punishment for a certain group.

  6. Facts should matter

    “help offset some costs the sheriff’s department accrues while maintaining the list.”

    Hell. No. This is the taxpayers train wreck and they should OWN IT.

  7. TS

    Since IN is not substantially compliant with SORNA, they don’t receive what they could from USG, but probably some money already. Their loss. Now, the big part of this is what would the officer be doing instead of this? His job which he is paid a salary for already, which includes anything that is asked of them beyond the job description. The problem becomes if they turn a profit on this, like TN does with their registry fees, they are taking advantage of the system and using the money elsewhere beyond maintaining the registry. That becomes a tax because it is not used to further educate people on the registry, etc when it should be so the funding stays within the area it was garnered from, e.g. gas tax goes to roads, etc.

    If someone in IN can ask for the financial data used to calculate what is needed to run the registry and what is collected already to figure out any differences, then one would see if an additional fee is really required. Otherwise, it is a tax on certain people which is beyond the fine and other punishment levied at the time of sentencing.

  8. Bo

    “Offenders also have to let him know if they plan to shave a beard or get a tattoo”
    Really? If they PLAN to do something… uh. No.

  9. JM of Wi.

    In Wi. there is a $100 fee. The fee was fought in court and we lost. (I was not aware of the fight till it was too late to support it). The fee is generating revenue for the registry. Not helpful to us. $2.5 Million per year

    • ma.concerned.citizen

      Here in MA it’s been $75 annually as long as I’ve been on it, and longer than that. I had just accepted that this was normal procedure. It’s insane.

      • Timmmy

        Why would you accept something as “normal” in which you were not sentenced to pay for?

    • Timothy

      “To offset the cost of the peoples electronic database property’s maintenance”
      The fee is retribution or paying again for settled claims, and upon initial challenge of the Wisconsin Fed circuit court in Madison that aspect alone survived and enjoined as “punitive and retribution” by the court. State appealed to the higher court and won the right to impose the fee as ” not a tax” . Still no party in that case ( Ramisch v) pointed out the SOR databases for what they are “Property”. Properties need tending necessarily and So both hired men and servants tend to the maintenance of same. The commodity being “personal data”. Who benefits most from that reality? Who knew it was coming and engaged in tactics to remove laws concerning limitation of same department data and unauthorized disclosure.
      So constitutional opinions by courts are like a**ho&%$ in that they all have one, but who listens or whom later interpret those opinions. The fees intent is to justify DOC budgeting as unpaid fees are put in the remittance lawfully owed column on the Department’s balance sheet. It is a way to hide true costs. That all result from embracing ex post laws and wasteful government program.

    • David

      @ Jun: My other idea is equally simple: how about Registrants each pay $100 per year to NOT be listed on the Registry! Then law enforcement will collect plenty of willingly paid fees, PLUS LEOs workload will shrink at the same time because fewer people will be on the Registry for them to monitor.

    • Timmmy

      In that case, next time you have to go register. Go to them and proclaim. “I am here to register. I will sign nothing. I want an attorney. I retain my right to remain silent. “

  10. steveo

    For it to be generating 2.5 million per year at $100 a pop, you’re state must have about 25,000 registered citizens in it. It seems like when it’s revenue, the only option is judicial, because they’re probably never going to legislate away income.

  11. American Detained in America

    I hope this passes

    …then there’s more evidence this is punishment.

  12. Anon

    “If they’re in say, Greene County, then they’d have to go to their sex offender officer and tell them, and then Greene County would change their address, which would send me a notification,” he said.

    Nah. Not like being on probation at all.

    I wonder if it’s possible to just overwhelm the system with changes, until they relent.

  13. David

    Hmmm, what would registrants get in return? Oh, that’s right: NOTHING!!
    So here’s a much better, much more fair, idea: why not charge a fee to those who want the Registry and use it? Make it a simple subscription fee. If you want to view the Registry, you pay a modest annual subscription fee.

    • Jun

      That’s actually a very good thought. Especially since they’re the ones who want it so badly.

    • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

      Why “modest?” Why not charge them through the nose? Say, whatever it costs the taxpayers as well as all of the social and personal costs of being on the registry? We should be getting royalties every time someone looks us up.

  14. James

    Registration is mandated by the state and purportedly benefits the taxpayers by warning them from the stranger-danger myth, so therefore the taxpayers should be footing the bill to maintain it not the registrants. I wonder what arguments were used in that court case mentioned earlier.

  15. AnonMom

    I am confused, isn’t there a $90 annual fee in California? Is this not standard? I am not saying it should be, as I don’t think my husband should be paying the government to put our family on a hit list, but I truly thought everyone had to pay for it unless they’re are legitimately financially indigent.

    • Cool CA RC

      I’ve never had to pay to register

    • NPS

      No fees in California. I’ll be registering for the 10th (and hopefully last) time this September before applying for the COR; never had to pay a fee nor was it ever requested.

    • American Detained in America

      Ten years of having to register as transient in California, that means I’ve had to register at least 120 times…and never once had a fee.

      Side note…that is a LOT of manhours wasted by law enforcement just keeping tabs on me.

  16. JM of Wi.

    My guess is that Janice would win our argument in California. Here in Wi. we didn’t have the organization nor the firepower. (Although now we could use Illinois’s Adele Nicholas). Not sure if we could re-open the issue here. Every cost we can put to government and society for the registration is helpful. – (I just looked up the legislation and it seems to allow it to be added to our taxes.) I had always assumed some grave charges.

  17. David

    “__________and _________ remain subject to not only the annual $100 fee, but also many other lifetime requirements and restrictions of the sex offender registry, even though they now live in Connecticut and Florida….”
    Wow! How come Florida hasn’t caught on to this and attempted to bill those of us convicted there but since moved away? I really don’t understand how a judge can see this as acceptable. One is required to register (against their will) AND required to pay for this “service”???
    Will they also be required to pay for regular Compliance Checks and other court-approved harrassment?

    😡 I am becoming increasingly impatient that all this horsesh#t hasn’t landed before SCOTUS and been ruled unconstitutional. Every year, those convicted of sexual offenses are burdened with more and more rules, requirements, restrictions and do-this-or-else threats. 😡

    • JM from wi

      I had originally thought not paying our (Wi.) $100.00 would put us “out of compliance”
      which is a class H felony.

      • Timothy

        “The court generally oppose secrecy” BULLSh*7 FISA courts ARE Secret courts!

    • e

      Don’t worry! Nothing lasts forever. Soon enough we will be dead. So will the people that make these terrible laws. I have found that getting mad only leads to my suffering, which they want. Example, a LEO followed me as I was walking my dog by a school( some nosey citizen had “alerted” them). Mind you I have a misdomeanor and have been off probation for 5 yrs. This caused me distress. But then I meditated on it and let it go. I saw same LEO a couple of days ago, he actually rolled his window down beside me and asked if I was walking toward school. I smiled and told him he smelled like a goat and to have sex with himself. I did this in Thai, which I am fluent. He looked befuddled and drove off. I continued on my way with a smile.
      They can degrade, harass, ban, and even label us, but we have the best defense we can have. We know we are right!

      • Will Allen

        Ha, that’s freaking funny.

        The best defense that I have is that I know I’m better than they are. In so many ways.

  18. Robert

    Here is a thought. Why should registrants pay federal and state taxes? Seems to me taxation without representation is how it is for those on the registry. Didn’t we once fight a war due to such? If you or someone you care about are on the registry you are no longer a civilian but a soldier! So, organize and mobilize! Other rights lost are the right to bare arms…we are put on a draconian blacklist where we can be hunted down and killed yet not able to defend ourselves! Seriously?

    • AJ

      “Seems to me taxation without representation is how it is for those on the registry.”
      Just because you didn’t or can’t vote for elected officials doesn’t mean you lack representation. You have two Sentaors and one Representative in the federal legislature (Congress), and you have some sort of representation at the State level as well–maybe only one person (unicameral legislaure), maybe two (bicameral legislature).

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 *