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: Jackson County to begin charging sex offenders for registry

[ – 4/22/19]

For years, the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office has been behind the times when it comes to its sex offender registry.

But it will now move ahead and collect some extra money in the process.

Indiana law allows for sheriff’s offices to collect a fee from convicted sex offenders in order to maintain the sex offender registry. But, for years, Jackson County did collect any fee.

Beginning in June, the JCSO will begin collecting $50 a year from sex offenders for the registry and $5 every time an offender changes an address.

“Right now, we have 75 active sex offenders in Jackson County,” Lt. Adam Nicholson said. “About 75-80 percent where we would consider them sexually violent predators.”

Nicholson said he didn’t realize it was even a possibility until he began reviewing Indiana law regarding sex offender registries and called surrounding counties about implementing a fee.

“Most of our surrounding counties are charging the maximum $50,” he said. “There’s a lot of upkeep that goes into making sure we’re aware of what these guys are up to, where they’re living.”

Read more


Join the discussion

  1. Shawn

    “Right now, we have 75 active sex offenders in Jackson County,” Lt. Adam Nicholson said. “About 75-80 percent where we would consider them sexually violent predators.”

    So 75 to 80% of his registrants are SVPs? Wow. That sort of flys in the face of all known legitimate statistics. Looks like a money grab to me. Newspapers shouldn’t print this sort of quote without mentioning the facts, or at the least that it is his opinion.

  2. Eric

    Just one more road block to being able to successfully integrate. It is so difficult to get back on your feet financially after incarceration, so this is one way to be sure it is a little more difficult. After I got out after 5 years for a non-contact offense which I lost my job, my vehicle, most all my possessions, my career, and an attorney took most of my savings, I was slapped with a $5,000 fine on top of my incarceration. Had I not had family to help me I would certainly be on the streets or probably back incarcerated for some petty technical violation like sleeping under an bridge too close to a daycare. If I had had an additional fee like this I think I would have given up. Maybe that is the idea!

    • Will Allen

      I really don’t think the amount is that big of a deal. I mean, compare $50 to your $5,000. Sure, it’s a pain but big government grabs money from me in more ways than I can count. I can’t own anything without paying big government well more than $50/year just for the privilege.

      To me, it’s not the amount, it’s the idea. Even just the $5 per address change would piss me off enough that I would have to do something IMMEDIATELY to cost them more than $100. I simply would have to.

      But I will say that a fee does make some sense. If people had not done something illegal, then big government would not have to be taking any actions (i.e. Registries). So the Registries are the fault of people who committed crimes. So it does make sense in that respect. But that ALL falls apart when people know that Registries are only for $EX and they are really just for useless harassment. They are not moral or legitimate. So the fee is for nothing more than to pay for an illegal harassment scheme. That is what makes it unacceptable.

      • Facts should matter

        SC is $150.00 a year!

        Red state hate.

      • C

        Agreed. .01 is too much money and an insult. I’m not the first to draw this comparison, but it bears repeating: it’s the equivalent of charging the family of the condemned for the cost of the bullet.

        • Will Allen

          I’m not so sure that isn’t fair. How about if a person commits a crime then he/she is responsible for all of the costs that went into investigating and prosecuting the crime? And also for the costs of any incarceration period? That is a PILE of cash. There is a decent amount of fairness to that.

          I definitely haven’t thought about it much or studied how/if that’s worked in the past.

          The problem with the Registries fee is that the Registries are immoral. They are not based in reality. They are anti-factual. And they only attack one group of people when obviously, if Registries are okay, 100s of groups should be similarly Registered and charged $$$. THAT is what makes it wrong.

  3. Facts should matter

    “behind the times.” LMAO.. News flash: Megan’s Law IS behind the times! It’s a product of ’90s hysteria and fear mongering. We’re still scapegoated 25 years later.

    Just give me one of those indigent forms to fill out, Mr. Pig.

  4. Dustin

    This county uses for its public registry, and I’m certain that there are more than sufficient federal and state grants given to the SD to cover those costs. Probably more than plenty left over to cover the 20 hours per week of this clown’s precious time, as though he wouldn’t get paid otherwise.

    It’s a shakedown. Period.

  5. Gini

    “BROWNSTOWN, Ind. (WDRB) — For years, the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office has been behind the times when it comes to its sex offender registry.
    But it will now move ahead and collect some extra money in the process.”

    Forgive me if I am wrong but to me this seems to be a form of a fine. A fine is punishment, it would seem that now the states that charge for registration are adding more punishment to the crime. The government claims that the registry is not punishment but it is civil.


    fine noun (1)
    a : a sum imposed as punishment for an offense
    b : a forfeiture or penalty paid to an injured party in a civil action


    The Law Dictionary
    Featuring Black’s Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.
    v. To impose a pecuniary punishment or mulct. To sentence a person convictedof an offense to pay a penalty in money. Goodman v. Durant B. & L. Ass’n, 71Miss. 310. 14 South. 146; State v. Belle, 92 Iowa, 258, 00 N. W. 525.

  6. Jo

    First, 75 “active” sex offenders. Really. Talk about spin. Active as in these guys are roaming your neighborhood right now looking for children.

    Second, 75 x $50 is $3750. Really. Less than $4000 is going to make or break your department. This is nothing more than punishment and shaming. I truly feel sorry for any registrant who has to live in that community

    • Lake County

      $4000 a year, really? That barely covers the cost of one officer for 2 weeks (with benefit costs). It will cost them more than that just to collect and account for that money.

      • Will Allen

        It is a pathetic amount of money, but better than nothing. And let’s face it, most governments are going to try to get/take whatever money they can get, from anywhere. If they can get away with taking more money, via whatever way, they’ll try it. For example, they WILL raise your property taxes as high as they can get away with. That is a constant, yearly battle.

        I do think this will cost them a lot more than they take in. I’ve dedicated a lot of time to costing law enforcement agencies as much as possible. I know that I’ve personally costed them piles and piles of cash. Surely 100 times this amount and more.

        I do think that all people should join groups that work to keep government as broke as possible. The smaller they are, the less resources they have, the less crimes they are able to commit.

        Also, things like these fees are complicated. These fees will likely cost them in more ways that are not monetary. For example, I won’t ever help a law enforcement agency with anything. A significant percentage of the public agrees with me. So in many ways, the job of LE is much, much harder than it would be if people actually respected and trusted them. Oh well. It’s all a vicious circle. We’ve hired these people to protect us and prevent crime, and yet I’ll do what I can to help make sure that doesn’t work well.

  7. Anonymous

    I would NOT pay. I guess I would be arrested. They would try to ruin my credit? LOL hahaha

  8. David

    “Right now, we have 75 active sex offenders in Jackson County,” Lt. Adam Nicholson said. “About 75-80 percent where we would consider them sexually violent predators.”
    “There’s a lot of upkeep that goes into making sure we’re aware of what these guys are up to, where they’re living.”
    Pure B#llsh#t!
    #1: If LEOs know of 75 existing, ongoing sex offenses (after all, wouldn’t “active sex offenders” be “actively” committing sex offenses), shouldn’t the LEOs do something about it??
    #2: 80% of the 75 people on the Podunk County registry (i.e., 60 registrants) are “sexually violent predators”?? Wow, way to justify you job, Bozo! Seriously, only 15 Registrants in County Podunk are NOT “sexually violent predators” – all the others are extremely high risk??
    (I guess they entirely fail to teach critical thinking in Indiana so lawmakers just accept whatever a guy in uniform serves up to them! Sad.)

    • Will Allen

      Let’s give the dipsh*ts some benefit of doubt.

      When he said “active sex offenders”, perhaps he meant people who are required to Register.

      I don’t have any problem with their “sexually violent predator” (SVP) statement. If they let those 15 non-SVP people off of the Registry then they’d have 100% that are SVP. Wouldn’t that be better overall?

      The funniest statement is “making sure we’re aware of what these guys are up to”. Only a fool would believe that. Maybe this is a tiny, tiny place with only 200 people there and then that MIGHT be possible. I know where I live, LE couldn’t even guess what I’m ever up to. They never know and never will. The harder they try, the more impossible I guarantee I will make it.

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 *