ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (10/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

We have emailed a link to the conference videos to all attendees and those who purchased the videos. If you haven’t received it and it is not in your spam folder, email

conference at all4consolaws dot org



Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) Report concludes SORNA does not achieve its goals

[ – 10/1/20]

PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER [from the web page]:

Registration and community notification with international adoption of these policies expanding to other countries in subsequent years. Federal and local laws in the U.S. and other Western countries require persons who have been convicted of a sexual crime to register their living location and other personal information with a local law enforcement agency on a regular basis. This requirement varies in its duration, but in many cases can continue for the rest of the registrant’s life. For the majority of registrants in the U.S., the information is posted on the internet and available to the general public , the most common form of community notification. Failure of the adult registrant to comply with these laws is a crime and, in many cases, non-compliance can result in a period of incarceration that is longer than the sentence for the sexual offense. Given the significant expansion of sex offender registries in the U.S. and around the world, a review of the research and best practices can provide needed guidance to policymakers, legislators, and front-line registry officials on these important issues.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS [page 11 of the downloadable paper]:

The research to date on SORN has not identified significant reductions in the incidence of sexual abuse or sexual offense recidivism as a result of this policy. This fact leads to the conclusion that SORN, as currently implemented within the United States, does not achieve the intended goals of preventing sexual abuse, protecting society, or effectively managing the risk of individuals convicted of sexual crimes. Current practices additionally have numerous unintended consequences which actually potentially increase, rather than decrease, risk factors for individuals required to register. If the goals of these laws are the prevention of sexual abuse and reducing recidivism risk, meaningful legislative reforms will be required.

Read the full description and download a PDF of paper


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
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Another confirmation about something that’s already been well known for decades. Does this report actually hold any significant weight for legislatures and, more importantly, the courts?

It was always machine centered rather than human centered, despite the creative marketing.
Free men are paid to maintain them or do so by volition which surely comes with its own inherent consideration. A law that renders human subservient is plain indenture and thus punitive in intent.
If no liberty at stake; who would complain. – J.P. Stevens.

Wow, I sure hope CASOMB receives a copy of this ATSA report …….. not that they would read it or give a s***. (I sincerely doubt they would!) 😠

CASOMB has already come to the same conclusion a while ago. Their annual reports have shown that recidivism is around 1% and it having nothing to do with the registry. It’s the politicians who turn a blind eye to all such info because it’s contradictory to everything they’re doing, and we can’t have that.

If the registry isn’t making a positive difference toward future offenses…then having a registry is punishment. Not only punishment for the registrant but also punishment to any family or loved ones that support the registrant.

That PDF is a nice compilation of why SORN isn’t doing its job (3/4 of sex offenses are new sex offenders) and the plethora of cases against the registry (most of them pertaining to minors).

I just submitted this report as a PUBLIC COMMENT to the new SORNA proposal by the Feds.

Someone else can do the same if they’d like, or submit excerpts from the report.

Every bit helps. Only 505 comments so far.

Too many lazy people unfortunately who can’t be bothered with helping the cause.

Sending my public comment soon. I’m using this article as my 13th pdf attachment. Solid article for us. Obviously written on behalf of ATSI . I’m inclined to agree with Dustin below. But, if SORNA would wholly accept their short comings and;
1. Eliminate public (internet) lists.
2. Allow for a maximum 5 to 10 years on nonpublished list.
3. Narrow non-public list to only a realistic data proven portion of tier 3.
The registration would not be such an onerous thing.
As it sits we are a honeypot for politicians, therapists, lawyers, polygraphs’, prisons, PO’s, CO’s, LEO’s and a bunch of worthless government workers. (or government workers doing worthless work).

The state’s people’s must acknowledge the error in considering the plain indentured servitude is as the 13th stated it to be- punishment per se.
The declaration a civil reveals somethings else affoot with respect to the feds use of the database driven infrastructure in collateral application to population monitoring otherwise known as domestic surveillance. In a police state you would expect to find broad segments of the population being electronically subservient ( as in braclets) but still other broad scoped tech exists for mass capturing and analysis of internet data. Finally one would expect to find banishment or social exclusion from lawful use for some (as in Fb et. al.) while the police entity is free to use every available database.

These niche markets share one trait, profitability! I dare anyone to do a search on google for something obscure OR unusual to you and watch how fast you start seeing ads for the same “topic” ” object” ” person” “place” ” technique ” “service” on your device.
They – the men in the grey can pick n you down quick ——–

ATSA is nothing more than a nice name and pretty logo to serve as window dressing for treatment providers. They and their members essentially use the substance abuse treatment model for SO “treatment” (which doesn’t make much sense considering the same people generally are in and out the drug courts every year) and can only claim successful “treatment” because nearly all “treated” SOs are simply not inclined to re-offend in the first place (and their programs don’t do one damn thing for the few that are). Their Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice are a joke, and (apparently) no member can be guilty of anything as long as their dues are paid.

Regarding the claim that “SORN, as currently implemented within the United States, does not achieve the intended goals of preventing sexual abuse, protecting society, or effectively managing the risk of individuals convicted of sexual crimes”, it overlooks that:

1. Regardless of whatever the original purpose of SORN was when implemented, its only purpose now is to increase funding for law enforcement and provide means for legalized discrimination.

2. There is simply no way to implement SORN to achieve the (supposedly) intended goals listed.

If you read a little closer, they’re not speaking against SORN, only it’s current implementation. Maybe the full report suggests an alternative implementation, but it wouldn’t make any difference in the rate of sexual recidivism of registrants if it does. Regardless, I’m more than certain that ATSA’s intent is to force more registrants into more “treatment” programs to be provided by its members.

1. Not everyone who pleads guilty, pleads no contest, is convicted by a judge or jury did something which qualifies as sexual abuse.

2. Keeping tabs on people because of a worry they might break the law again based on prior conduct in of itself is neither a guarantee the supervision/registration/monitoring will prevent anything or an accurate method for predicting behavior.

3. The solution everyone seeks requires stopping potential victims from ever becoming victims and potential law breakers from ever breaking the law ideally years before there’s any real risk. Unfortunately this would need to be an international effort with every country involved. Sadly because so much disagreement exists about most things, one of the last subjects everyone would agree on is anything related to sex.

There are large cultural differences concerning what is considered ” moral” and ” immoral. ”
Not all that long ago the World press was all up in arms about stories of genital mutilation of young females in a central African to discourage pleasure and birth rates. The feminists were screaming as if their hair was on fire. Yet in America and elsewhere, circumcision is routinely practiced by pediatricians where the protective foreskin is removed from the penis by various means.

Naturally we Americans love to force our distorted sense upon others by force.
So everyone agrees but not in concrete AND well defined terms by definition!I
My state’s Sec. 301.01 states in b\w the purpose of the dept. “….to prevent attack and the causes……. ” Yet CP possession conviction while criminal are not ” assault or attack ” on the basis that “past behavior is indicative of future behavior.” In other words, outside of the jurisdictional purpose of the people’s intent behind the creation of the DOC itself; yet SOR is structurally within the auspices of the DOC and not the other way around.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x