ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21 Recording Uploaded, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

National

NIJ: Tracking Sex Offenders: Federal Law, Resources Have Led to Marked Improvement of State Registries, But More Work Is Needed

[nij.ojp.gov – 11/13/20]

Communities want to know when convicted sex offenders are living in their midst. For a quarter century, federal law has guaranteed communities the right to know. In 1994, Congress mandated that all states develop sex offender registries. Two years later, Megan’s Law provided that sex offender information must be made public.

In the ensuing decade, sex offender laws and registries sprang up in all states — but not always with the full impact intended. In some instances, technology deficits limited information sharing across registries and jurisdictions, a synergy vital to tracking mobile offenders. Resource shortfalls strained states’ abilities to keep up with the growing volume of offenders required to register their presence, and with new types of identifying data for offenders. Jurisdictional inconsistency left a patchwork of programs, evidencing a need for national norms.

In the end, the researchers reported many states have run into barriers preventing them from substantially implementing all SORNA standards, due to resource constraints, incompatible state or local laws, a lack of requisite legislative will, or a combination of factors.

Read how they plan to expand SORNA

 

 

Join the discussion

  1. JohnDoeUtah

    While I understand their purpose is to enforce federal law; they are actively ignoring the reality of SORNA. The States don’t like it, the data doesn’t support it, and the Courts are beginning to see it for what it is.

    Instead of revisiting the law, they recognize that the states likely will not implement more of the law, and plan other methods to force the issue. I see them asking Congress to formally preempt state law on this issue.

    • AnonMom

      So this “study” is just to support the SORNA expansion, right? It spells it out pretty clearly that what they think is needed is more funding and consistent laws- wasn’t consistency the goal of the expanded language? Great…

      • David⚜️

        @ AnonMom: So you read their report? Doesn’t it read like a Nazi SS report to Hitler about problems being encountered with their “Final Solution”??
        The report objectifies registrants as if we are “things” or “its” that need to monitored, surveiled and controlled.

  2. TS

    No one has ever said the Feds were the brightest wax coloring book tools in the box.

    “The research described in this article was funded by NIJ grant 2014-AW-BX-K003, awarded to University of Massachusetts Lowell. The article is based on the report “Information Sharing and the Role of Sex Offender Registration and Notification” (2020), by Andrew J. Harris (principal investigator), Kimberly Kras (co-investigator), and Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky (co-investigator). The team also produced an executive summary.” Executive summary is 25 pages and full report is 182. Links for them are within the last paragraph of this article if anyone’s interested.

  3. MatthewLL

    I live in one of those 24 states where the SO web site does not comply with the federal requirements, thank God. Not being on the web site and outed to the public has allowed me to work, make a decent living, and raise my kids, both of whom are in college. In less than a year my 10 years will but up and off the state registry and no longer under Federal SORNA. Even so, the struggle for me will continue with international travel and other states still requiring I register. It will however be much better for me than the vast majority of registered citizens. Yes, the law should be changed for it protects no one and hurts more than it helps.

  4. Will Allen, Registration Liberation Army

    As long as the Hit Lists exist I promise that I’ll make them worse than worthless. I will be around random children all the time. I was this past weekend. I will be all this week. I’ll also be delivering real consequences this week.

    These idiot criminal regimes can tell whomever they want where I live. I’ll continue to laugh at them and make it worthless. They can “Register” my vehicles and license plates. I’ll continue to laugh at them and promise them it will never help them with anything. They can “Register” my e-mail addresses and anything else they want. I laugh in their faces.

    They request war. It is the obligation of all good, moral Americans to deliver it.

    All People Forced to Register need to strike preemptively. Ensure that if a criminal regime murders you today that they will still have lost their war.

    • L J

      Amen, brother.
      “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty”
      I’ve been waiting to hold these fascists accountable for a long time…..

      • Will Allen

        Amen.

        But no one should be waiting to “hold these fascists accountable”. It’s unfortunate, but you might die tomorrow. Everyone needs to act yesterday.

        The Hit Lists are not acceptable. I’m not going to allow them to exist in peace. There will always be consequences.

  5. w

    They believe we need more “effective” tracking of people who AREN’T DOING ANY HARM? After a PANDEMIC just hit??? Aren’t they at least glad they survived?!

    No, this was the way they were always going to be. They were never going to play nice so registrants need to respond in kind. Anyone who submits to new rules every time is selling out. Resist their bs, there should be NO REGISTRY PERIOD. The backers are always playing the victim card. The scum district attorneys have found their perfect sword and they’ve manipulated the agenda so that it’s become untouchable. The legislature isn’t doing anything to stop it. The whole system needs to be pulled out from the roots.

    If you’re a free person fight for those who aren’t. Pick yourselves up, the system is not bigger than you. Don’t settle for personal victories where you can cash in and bow out. Everyone wants to leave this behind when they can. Think about how little the pool of help already is and how worse off those who are just starting their journey are. The help was there for those who needed it, they in turn should do the same for others. You want to see change? Get busy and be the next ACSOL.

    You know that’s the only way, nobody’s going to step in and do this for you. You have to do it yourselves. But at least you know that when you do nobody else can lay claim to that victory BUT YOU.

    • M C

      When you ar talking about a law enforcement body quite frankly I believe they want to track everyone not just RSOs. They push constitutional boundaries all the time to see how far they can push this agenda and increase arrests. It just happens that RSO is the easiest group to do this to because the people who won’t support say tracking a burglar will still support tracking a RSO. This RSO thing is just a start for LE. Once they can do nearly nothing new with RSO tracking they will slowly broaden tracking to other criminal offenses pointing to the success of RSO tracking even if the tracking provides no benefits.

  6. Brandon

    Here’s an idea National Institute of Justice, “Strengthen Science, enhance justice”, science has never supported the registry and study after study shows what a dismal failure it’s been. Sounds to me you are in bed with big government and SMART office. You morons need to be tracked for the harm and waste you cause to this country based on your hate and bloated paychecks.

  7. Tim in WI

    TRACKING……
    As in a package being hauled by a major carrier. An object, a thing, a known convict, but never just a human. The didn’t just build a database! They began human indentured servitude to it.

    • Jun

      It’s all commercial. “Registration”. “Registry”. Jurisdiction over your name. How do you claim back ownership over your name from Congress’ jurisdiction? Stop receiving benefits and privileges from Washington DC. If receiving benefits and privileges, strawman has, unknowingly, contracted to follow statutes, state and county. I can go on. This is Contract/Commercial Law. Public name ought to go PRIVATE. They won’t stop until you claim your real name. Anyway, Peace.

  8. AERO1

    I wake up everyday and think How the hell did I get stuck in this neverending nightmare
    Being placed on the registery is a death sentence a slow death sentence.
    Thank GOD I was really young when I was placed on the registry and hopefully I’ll be Walking away from this phuct up situation in my 30s.
    SORNA isn’t going anywhere in reality their comeing and the fact that Kamala Harris aka (TOP COP) is gonna be vice president dosen’t look good she’s gonna pass the new SORNA laws in America the Democrats are coming to clean house the president’s action in the last 4 years have opened the door for politicians to say and do whatever they want.
    I feel for teenagers 18 and under cought up in this madness their whole lives are ruined.

    Good luck

  9. David⚜️

    “In some instances, technology deficits limited information sharing across registries and jurisdictions, a synergy vital to tracking mobile offenders. Resource shortfalls strained states’ abilities to keep up with the growing volume of offenders required to register …” What a shame!
    And in the mean time, we at DOJ and every other LE organization have done our best to disregard all research and data that indicate convicted sex offenders have an extraordinary lead low recidivism rate.
    (Oh wait, they author failed to include that information?? What a surprise!)

    • JohnDoeUtah

      They also ignore that those resource shortfalls are because of their policies. If you enact new law that adds offences, adds back those previously released from the registry, and tilt the numbers to make most lifetime registrants; that’s your own damn fault.

      • David⚜️

        They should take the newly needed funds out of those lawmakers’ own salaries – maybe then they would learn (assuming they’re capable of learning.)

    • TS

      An objective study would have included the data conclusion for an opposing point. However, when you consider this is probably going to be used for budgetary reasons, the study has to have a positive conclusion which the granting authority wants to see and read. Ignorance is Bliss.

    • Anonymous

      I noticed those comments too David. It occurred to me that if they complain about growth of their case load, we should probably give them even more work. Those on GPS should make sure they don’t stay cooped up at home. Let the police chase ghosts looking for crimes where there are none. Keep frequent data points for them to track, especially internet identifiers, even if you never use them (just make sure you keep the adds and deletes current). Live law abiding lives, but don’t make their job any easier, especially if the local jurisdictions give you trouble anyway. Let them think that tracking your every movement is worth their time, then make sure you waste as much of it as possible so they will get fed up and frustrated not being able to get any dirt on you. It infuriated my PO that he couldn’t get any dirt on me, so he made up false allegations, staged traps, etc. to spring on me, but I was too squeaky clean, and it enraged him.

      • David⚜️

        @ anonymous:. Oh, I like that!! If I ever have to submit internet identifiers, I will do my best to constantly be signing up for new sites, new emails, new accounts, etc….. only to abandon them and create new ones for the next month!! Over and over again!!! F#ck the system!! LOL! 🤣🤣🤣

        • Brandon

          If we ever have to register when we find the opposite sex or anyone attractive, I’d be at the sheriffs office all the time. They’ve wasted my time and I have no problem with taking time away from their coffee and donut breaks.

        • TS

          Check the law to see if you even have to provide internet IDs. Until a few years ago, I provided without knowing better my internet IDs. Then, I learned the law and it was applicable only to convictions with minors. I had my atty call the detective and inform him I would not be providing it anymore since the section of the law did not apply to me. They still have it in their file they show me and ask me for it when I see them, but I happily decline providing it which causes a moment of pause with them. Give them an inch, they will take a country mile, as we all know too well here in this forum.

        • Will Allen

          I don’t know that attacking LE with additional information all of the time will be that useful. Perhaps. But won’t they just hire more flunkies to do the grunt work? You are creating more “work” for them so they need more resources to handle it. Although I do expect that it would be frustrating enough. Where I live there does seem to be a very high turnover in the Registration department. I’ve wondered if they use those “jobs” as a way to punish officers and other people. If you are a bad cop then you have to record e-mail addresses, lol.

          I prefer to attack law enforcement everywhere except the Hit Lists. You can join watchdog groups that monitor their pay and benefits. I work to ensure they aren’t overpaid. The people at the top are very often overpaid. I’ve contacted hundreds of “rank and file” law enforcement officers and showed them comparisons of their pay and benefits with the upper staff positions.

          I also point out all of their failures. For example, if they fail to find a kidnapped child I will point that out but will simultaneously commend them for ensuring that they checked out 20 Hit List addresses. They often don’t have “enough” resources to do many jobs well but at the same time have enough to jack off with their Hit Lists. All that needs to be highlighted.

          I’d also encourage you to work with whatever government agency where you live controls their budget. Their budgets are almost always too big. “Defund the police” is not a popular saying for many people, so maybe reframe that as the money should be directed to more useful programs/agencies. As long as LE has resources to jack off with Hit Lists, they have too much. Same with the criminal regimes. Big government is waaaaaaaaaaay too big.

  10. David⚜️

    I’ve just sent the following email message to the articles authors:

    RE: “Information Sharing and the Role of Sex Offender Registration and Notification”

    Dear Drs. Harris, Kras, and Lobanov-Rostovsky,

    I read you article regarding the technical shortfalls of sex offender registries. While I understand you may have little interest in “killing the golden goose” that helps fund your work, I have to ask:

    1. Do your research and publication efforts ever emphasize the extremely low re-offense rates of individuals convicted of sex offenses??
    2. Do you considered it appropriate for individuals to be permanently identified by what may have been a one-time occurrence in their life?
    Note these lists are always referred to as “Sex Offender Registries” as if all the individuals on these registries are currently and continuously in the process of committing sex offenses, as opposed to what may have been a one-time offense from 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Why are the lists not referred to as “sex offense” registries??
    3. Do you ever address the collateral damage done to families of those required to register as convicted sex offenders??
    4. Do you ever emphasize the fact that the great majority of new sex offenses are committed by individuals not listed on any Registry, most frequently perpetrated by family members or other trusted individuals known to the victim??
    If sex offense registries were truly successful at reducing the number of sex offenses, after all these decades of public registries, wouldn’t the rate of sex offenses be greatly reduced and incredibly low?
    5. Do you have any empirical evidence that registries actually reduce the occurrence of sex offense crimes??
    6. If sex offense registries are effective at their purported purpose of protecting the public, do you also advocate for the creation of other publicly accessible criminal offense registries, such as a domestic violence offender registry, a DUI driver registry, a violent assault offender registry, a gang violence registry, etc?? If you do not advocate for such registries, why not??
    This would seem especially important for the public’s safety since the individuals committing those offenses all have very high re-offense rates, so why do no publicly accessible registries for such offenders exist to protect the public from these offenders?? By not advocating for these publicly accessible registries, are you not being disingenuous in your support only for sex offense registries to the exclusion of other such registries??

    As I am sure you are aware, there are now nearly 1 million individuals in the U.S. who are required to register on sex offense registries. Many of these individuals – approximately 20% – are themselves children – the very individuals such sex offense registries are intended to protect. Doesn’t that bother you??

    As I do a quick Google search of your names, publications, and presentations, I see that there are a great many people involved in the business (“industry”, really) of sex offense registries. But how are these registries anything more than modern public pillories of individuals, posting their information for all to see for anywhere from 10 years to a lifetime??
    Do you consider these registries to be just??
    Your piece begins by stating “Communities want to know when convicted sex offenders are living in their midst.” I’m very sure that if you survey the public to ask them if they would like such _public safety resources” as a domestic violence offender registry or a DUI driver registry, the vast majority would say “yes”, they would want such registries. But those are not provided to the public. So what makes sex offense registries different…. aside from what appears to be blatant pandering to the public’s prurient interests and the mass media’s sex offense hysteria which has now been going on for the last 50 years??

    I sincerely hope you will consider and reflect upon these questions and how they relate to your work.

    My thanks for your time and attention.

    Sincerely,

    David ___________
    _______ , California

    • Mike G

      @David⚜️

      Excellent response! I hope they at least read it, though saying or doing anything about it is unlikely since money speaks more than morals and compassion these days, at least for these folks.

  11. Resident

    I don’t remember seeing a “right to know” in the constitution.

    • David⚜️

      You must be reading the old Constitution. I’m sure there’s a new Constitution somewhere around here …. you know, the one that law enforcement seems to follow, the one that doesn’t align with all that silly gibberish in the old Constitution. 😒

    • Will Allen

      There is obviously no “right to know”. If there were, Gun Offender Registries would have been created well over 20 years ago. There is no right.

      There is a right to mind your own f’ing business. There is a right to leave other families alone and stop harassing people. “People” who can’t do that need to pay. People Forced to Register likely crossed that line at some point. They were arrested and imprisoned. The exact same thing should happen to all “people” who support the harassing Hit Lists. They deserve to be arrested and imprisoned.

      Registry Supporters/Terrorists need to be imprisoned. That is the message that needs to be conveyed incessantly forever. Lock THEM up. All of them.

  12. L J

    Someone should find and publish the personal names and addresses of these disingenuous, worm-like beaurocrats who author these reports.

    Just like with vigilantes, there are hundreds of thousands of angry sex offenders in the US, looking to hold the nazi regime accountable…

    If something happens to them, “oh well! Too bad!” – that’s the same attitude they have toward us.

    It’s time to reflect their hate and fear back at them. It’s time to hold them accountable.

  13. New Person

    What is odd is there is this 20-year study on the effectiveness of the registry: https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350

    An excerpt from that 20-year study abstract: *** “The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.” ***

    Here’s an article about that 20-year study: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/sex-offender-registration-and-notification-research-finds-limited-effects-new

    That article is from the same office of expanding the SORN. It’s as if they don’t care about that 20-year study so they can focus on how to effectively make the national SOR expanded to all states and territories. What about that 20-year study?

    If you were emailing this group of authors, then I’d suggest adding these two links I provided as a query as to why they are trying to expand something that doesn’t work and remains very costly?

    • TS

      The 20 year study is already nearly 12 years old (2008 & 2009 from your two sources); therefore, they may not deem the data valid due to age, but the authors may not have known of these sources or did anyone in the USG office without it being called to their attention. (The intern should’ve though since intern’s are in the basement with a single light bulb and water dripping in the corner when they discover something like this, but I digress…) However, the data is valid and should be sent to the authors for their information (hopefully they read it) in addition to the office who granted the study to be done to show what you wrote here in addition to what @David wrote. Data can be updated and added to other data reports to show history.

      As I said before, I can see this being used for budgetary reasons in the upcoming Presidential and Agency budget cycle, regardless of who is in the Oval Office, and in response to Epstein’s escapades of travel he flaunted (which is an embarrassment to the USG in this area). So, I’d recommend sending this report with these two reports with other data as well to the USG office who granted the study in addition to anyone on the Judiciary committees (who may turn a deaf ear and blind eye to this entire data pkg) to show them the error of their ways and try to get them to actually see it with some sort of acknowledgement. The question becomes are they going to spend money here regardless of the efficacy (or lack thereof) while cutting a budget elsewhere for political gain or will they actually listen? Sounds like a storm the hill matter to me.

    • David⚜️

      @ New Person: Those were published in December 2008 and January 2009, so they are only 12 years old (not 20 years). Of course, one could argue that, being more recent, the articles are even more pertinent. 🤷🏻‍♂️

  14. David⚜️

    My God, if you read their report, it reads like something the Nazi SS bureaucrats would submit to Hitler about the Jews and the “Final Solution”!!
    I’m NOT kidding – read it!!

  15. David⚜️

    I have just sent the articles authors the following email:

    RE: “Information Sharing and the Role of Sex Offender Registration and Notification”

    Dear Drs. Harris, Kras, and Lobanov-Rostovsky,

    I read you article regarding the technical shortfalls of sex offender registries. While I understand you may have little interest in “killing the golden goose” that helps fund your work, I have to ask:

    1. Do your research and publication efforts ever emphasize the extremely low re-offense rates of individuals convicted of sex offenses??
    2. Do you considered it appropriate for individuals to be permanently identified by what may have been a one-time occurrence in their life?
    Note these lists are always referred to as “Sex Offender Registries” as if all the individuals on these registries are currently and continuously in the process of committing sex offenses, as opposed to what may have been a one-time offense from 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Why are the lists not referred to as “sex offense” registries??
    3. Do you ever address the collateral damage done to families of those required to register as convicted sex offenders??
    4. Do you ever emphasize the fact that the great majority of new sex offenses are committed by individuals not listed on any Registry, most frequently perpetrated by family members or other trusted individuals known to the victim??
    If sex offense registries were truly successful at reducing the number of sex offenses, after all these decades of public registries, wouldn’t the rate of sex offenses be greatly reduced and incredibly low?
    5. Do you have any empirical evidence that registries actually reduce the occurrence of sex offense crimes??
    6. If sex offense registries are effective at their purported purpose of protecting the public, do you also advocate for the creation of other publicly accessible criminal offense registries, such as a domestic violence offender registry, a DUI driver registry, a violent assault offender registry, a gang violence registry, etc?? If you do not advocate for such registries, why not??
    This would seem especially important for the public’s safety since the individuals committing those offenses all have very high re-offense rates, so why do no publicly accessible registries for such offenders exist to protect the public from these offenders?? By not advocating for these publicly accessible registries, are you not being disingenuous in your support only for sex offense registries to the exclusion of other such registries??

    As I am sure you are aware, there are now nearly 1 million individuals in the U.S. who are required to register on sex offense registries. Many of these individuals – approximately 20% – are themselves children – the very individuals such sex offense registries are intended to protect. Doesn’t that bother you??

    As I do a quick Google search of your names, publications, and presentations, I see that there are a great many people involved in the business (“industry”, really) of sex offense registries. But how are these registries anything more than modern public pillories of individuals, posting their information for all to see for anywhere from 10 years to a lifetime??
    Do you consider these registries to be just??
    Your piece begins by stating “Communities want to know when convicted sex offenders are living in their midst.” I’m very sure that if you survey the public to ask them if they would like such _public safety resources” as a domestic violence offender registry or a DUI driver registry, the vast majority would say “yes”, they would want such registries. But those are not provided to the public. So what makes sex offense registries different…. aside from what appears to be blatant pandering to the public’s prurient interests and the mass media’s sex offense hysteria which has now been going on for the last 50 years??

    I sincerely hope you will consider and reflect upon these questions and how they relate to your work.

    My thanks for your time and attention.

    Sincerely,

    David __________
    _______ , California

    • TS

      Did you send this letter twice or just post it twice with changes to the second posting?

      • Will Allen

        That’s a good question. But I just checked and there are no differences between the two.

        So why not send it to the authors twice? Heck, I’ve contacted some writers every month for over a year. It is good to keep reminding people. I know my local legislators are tired of hearing from me. But guess what? I couldn’t give the first F. The Hit Lists are not going to just exist in peace. As long as they exist I am going to cause people problems. They are going to hear from me until it makes them physically ill. And since they’ve attacked my spouse, children, friends, etc., for decades, all of that is fair game. They want a sh*tty, hateful country so it needs to be ensured that they are the ones who suffer the most from it. It’s not going to be my family.

      • David⚜️

        @ TS: The second email I sent to them noted the two articles identified above by ”
        “New Person” regarding the limited value of registries and if they could comment on the billions of dollars spent on registries versus the limited value.
        No response.
        Cowards.
        LE goon enablers.

    • Will Allen

      I wanted to respond to this when you posted it before. But, we all have limited time!

      I think this is a great letter. Personally, I love the tone. And obviously you point out a lot of great facts that are not even debatable.

      Everyone should call the Hit Lists the “sex offense registries”. And insist accurate journalists do.

      Instead of saying “required to register” though, I think people should say “forced to register”. “Required” doesn’t appropriately convey that it is something illegal forced by criminal regimes. The Hit Lists are an act of war. People who are listed on them are People Forced to Register.

      • New Person

        “Required to register under penalty of law” to be more apt. This way it is easily translatable that the act is involuntary. An involuntary act by a free citizen would constitute as “involuntary servitude”, which is unconstitutional.

        This “involuntary servitude” does not apply to all citizens, but a very small subset. Military service, jury duty, and taxes are applied to all citizens. There is a very significant difference.

        • Will Allen

          Thanks for thinking about it and responding.

          Your description is better than just “required to register”. But it is too nice and calm for me. I don’t want to be talking to people and using terms that make it appear as if the Hit Lists might be sensible.

          I’ve got to stick with “forced to register”. Perhaps even add to it. Maybe “Person Forced to Register by an idiotic, immoral, illegal act of war”?

          In the past I used “Person Registered for Harassment, Restrictions, and Punishment (PRHRP)”. I like the accuracy of that. If you are listed on the Hit Lists, that is exactly what you are signing up for. Someone here, I believe it was “AJ”, didn’t like the “PRHRP” part because he said it looked too close to “PERP”.

          Later today, I’ll be waging some good war against some Registry Supporters/Terrorists. I’ll be completing some planned actions to deliver consequences to them. Sweet day. The hate in America rages on.

        • New Person

          @Will Allen,

          You should add the word “Free” before your newly made slogan: “Free person forced to register.”

          Can a free person be forced to do something? Like wear a mask in their own home? Or prevented from travel anywhere within the US? Hmmmm…

          This pandemic and “force acts” upon people under the guise of public safety will run ahead. Today’s trampling of civil liberties is akin to what the registry is to people who are thought to have regained their rights.

        • LPH

          @ New Person: “…the guise of public safety…”… That pisses me off. I watched, in person at the ICU ward, my mother die from this virus. FU.

      • David⚜️

        @ Will Allen: Point acknowledged.

  16. Worried in Wisconsin

    One of the local papers around here publishes notices when registrants are released from confinement into the community. They often will include a line which reads “will be a lifetime member of the sex offender registry” or something very close to that.

    They make it sound like something desirable or wanted. I don’t thing that ‘registry’ describes it at all. A registry is something you do for wedding gifts. What we are talking about is something much more than a registry.

    • Will Allen (Registration Liberation Army officer)

      “Idiotic, immoral, illegal, counterproductive Hit List” works for me.

    • JohnDoeUtah

      It is no longer a price club postcard.

      It is now a form of community supervision that is in many ways modeled on probation/parole, but far exceeds the duration of the original sentence.

  17. underdog

    Word choice is always so important; euphemistic phraseology can hide a multitude of sins. So, it is with the term “registry” . As Worried in Wisconsin (and others) have appropriately pointed out , the word “registry” connotes something pleasant or quaint. So, I am inclined to vote for Will Allen’s suggestion: “Idiotic, Immoral, Illegal, and Counterproductive Hit List.” There’s no white-washing those words. And, again, word choice is paramount, especially when nefarious and underhanded conduct is occurring. Upon my release from prison in Connecticut in May of 2017, I met with my parole agent and she referred to me as her “client.” When I questioned the use of “client,” she explained that her supervisors thought “client” was more dignified than “parolee.” I couldn’t prevent the instinctual chuckle that I produced. She asked what I thought was funny. I took a chance and expressed my thoughts. Well, if I am your client, what services will you be providing. She responded, “It is my job to make sure that you do not present a problem to society; and if you do, then it is my job to correct the issues that are making you be problematic.” I then asked, “Will you be assisting me in obtaining a job?” Her response: “Well, not exactly, but I will give you a list of felon friendly businesses. Then it is up to you to call them and get the job.” She presented me with a list that did not include phone numbers or addresses. And, initially, I was not allowed to use a computer. So, the list of businesses she gave me were essentially worthless. At the end of our first conversation, I asked, “Well, since I am your client may I fire you?” She smirked and said, “That’s not how it works.” I ended with, “Well, then I am not really your client. But I will do all that is asked of me as a parolee.” “Registry” and “client” are terms used to make those making the rules feel better about themselves.

  18. David⚜️

    Hmmm.🤔 I have emailed the article’s authors twice. No response. Cowards. Just like the Nazis.

    • James I

      Dear David:

      I must say that letter of yours up thread is really excellent…I have cut and pasted it so I can save it to my computer…if I ever need some very good words, I’ll used most of yours, with some modifications to mirror the then current situation.

      My attitude is…steal from the best…lol…;>}}

      Thanks, James I

      • David⚜️

        Thank you, James. I appreciate your comment. This is the 3rd and final email I have sent them:

        “Drs. Harris, Kras, and Lobanov-Rostovsky,

        It’s rather disturbing that of the three of you, not one is willing to reply and defend the value of your work.
        Perhaps it is indefensible?

        I assume you are aware that, in several recent cases, judges have found sexual offense registries to be unconstitutional (typically citing Ex Post Facto reasons).

        So between being unconstitutional, being of limited value and effectiveness, and being burdensomely expensive, you nonetheless support sex offense registries??

        Unwilling to defend the indefensible??

        Sincerely,
        David ______
        “Registrant”
        State of California

        NOTE: I do not intend to write to them again, nor do I have any expectation of a response.
        If I do happen to receive a reply, I will probably post it here for all to read.

  19. underdog

    @David

    David- Thank you so much for your efforts. And while it’s insulting and craven of the authors not to respond to your pertinent and poignant points, I encourage you to continue to email them until you receive a response. Perhaps you can request a “No Thank You” email from them, if they have no intention of defending their misguided claims. That might prompt them into responding in some fashion. I plan on sending those authors an email, as well. I have begun my own crusade by attempting to enlist the help of a syndicated columnist whose works I began reading while I still lived in Connecticut. I emailed him back in 2019, before relocating to California. I provided him with my criminal history and asked if he would be interested in embarking on a series of columns that would address larger issues concerning the criminal justice system. He did respond, and did ask me to clarify what I had in mind. I sent a few more emails but then my transfer was approved and my correspondence was put on hold. Recently, I sent him the following email:

    Dear Mr. Walker-

    My name is Glenn ______. In February of 2019 I emailed you and explained to you my crime and battles with the criminal justice system. My wife and I have since relocated from Stamford, CT to Los Angeles, CA, and my frustration with the criminal justice system remains. I became a fan of your commentary while living in Connecticut; and that appreciation has continued since I moved to California.

    The impetus behind this correspondence is to open up a dialogue that perhaps will lead to some real change for those currently incarcerated and those who have technically been released from prison, but still remain ensnared by narrow-minded thinking.

    I was a public school educator for twenty years before being incarcerated for twenty-one months.

    I bring perspective that would be of value towards genuine reform in a system that is broken. Since my release in May of 2017, I have known that involvement in restructuring the current system of rehabilitation for former inmates is part of my journey.

    I respect your insight and am reaching out with the fervid hope of joining forces and making a difference in an area that we both know is in dire need of resurrection.

    Thank you for your time.

    Sincerely-
    Glenn _________

    If I don’t receive a response in a timely fashion, I will send this email, again. At moments like this I think of Andy Dufresne (from “Shawshank Redemption”) and his response after receiving a grant from the State for the prison library; he wasn’t satisfied with the amount of the check and stated, “From now on, I’ll write two letters a week, instead of one.”

  20. David⚜️

    @ underdog (a/k/a Glenn): Where in CT? (I was in Fairfield.)

  21. David

    @ underdog/Glenn: Please contact me at: PrivateMailBoxx@mail.com if comfortable doing so.

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 *

.