Missouri is the 20th state to join a nationwide sex offender registry.
OffenderWatch said in a news release this week that every Missouri law enforcement agency that manages or investigates registered sex offenders will be able to collaborate on offender records, aid each other in investigations and share notifications with the public. It won a five-year contract from the Missouri Highway Patrol.
Missouri has about 16,000 registered sex offenders.
What are the investigating registrants for? Does the public really need to know where registrants are and what are they basing this on? That’s nothing special or new.
Follow the money. Somebody likes it. But It does not save the children. For numerous reasons, It puts them more at risk of becoming victims. Follow the money. Somebody’s getting bags of it.
so………… do they want medals? or a chest to pin it on?
Does it strike anyone odd that originally
51 separate SOR databases were promulgated individually, while ONE(1) FEDERAL DATABASE would have been sufficient, based on felony conviction which are first certified by states and second, a notice of said conviction(s) are sent to the FBI for catalogue.
From big data perspective better to sell 50 units AND not just one.
Congratulations OffenderWatch on your new 5 year contract /s Its all about the $$$
This is not a relevant media article but in essence a press release by Offender Watch. Why is this posted?
Missouri established its sex offender registry decades ago (1995) and became SORNA compliant in 2008 – per the official Missouri State Highway Patrol web site, which includes a perfectly functioning listing web site.
Apparently the administration of the web site is being taken over by Offender Watch – replacing the existing one or being established in parallel. Since I am not a Missouri tax payer I do not care one whit about use or waste of Missouri tax payer money. Anyone here from Missouri could or should demand transparency in this process.
What I do know, however, is California law. PC 290.46 mandates that ” the Department of Justice shall make available information concerning persons who are required to register pursuant to Section 290 to the public via an Internet Web site as specified in this section. The department shall update the Internet Web site on an ongoing basis.”
For some reason, the following law enforcement agencies, in addition and parallel to the CA DOJ, operate a separate Internet Web Site under the Offender Watch brand.
My questions:
– under what authority are these web site created and maintained?
– what is the cost of these web sites and how are they funded?
– none of the required disclaimers are provided?
– how do these agencies explain the (massive) discrepancies between their sites and the official state site? In terms of number of persons listed, and details per person listed? Not a single profile lists the (required) dates of conviction and release, alias and appearance information is vastly different, and
— since accurate dissemination of current offender details are purported to increase public safety, how do these agencies explain their active undermining of said public safety?
Anyone?
Here are the agencies (http://communitynotification.com/counties.php?state=ca)
Butte County Sheriff’s Office
Colton CA Police Department
Colusa County Sheriff’s Office
Escondido Police Department
Folsom Police Department
Fontana Police Department
Glenn County Sheriff’s Office
Lassen County CA Sheriff’s Office
Montclair CA Police Department
Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office
San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office
San Ramon Police Department
Santa Maria Police Department
Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Department
Tehama County Sheriff’s Office
Ventura County Sheriff’s Office
They might as well rebrand themselves MonsterWatch or something to continue to instill fear into people for absolutely no real good reason. It’s just a huge money grab, which has been obvious to me for many years.
On a side note, i had no idea Missouri didn’t publish registrants on a national database. I thought all States did.