ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (04/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings




NY: After 25 Years, It Is Past Time To Reform New York’s Sex Offender Risk Assessment System: Part II

[ – 2/9/21]

In Part 1 of this article, I outlined what I believe are the significant flaws in the Risk Assessment Instrument (the RAI) New York courts are required to use to assess sex offender risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA or Megan’s Law, Article 6-C of the Correction Law). Under SORA, courts are required to designate offenders as being at low, moderate or high risk to re-offend. The rankings not only determine the length and intrusiveness of sex offender registration and community notification, which often last for life, but vital collateral matters, like whether offenders may live within 1,000 feet of a school, receive Section 8 housing vouchers or live in public housing. The RAI is primarily designed to measure the risk that a sex offender will re-offend and the harm which would be caused by a re-offense.

Read the full article


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

I sad before, I’ll say again. Considering well over 98% of new sex crime is committed by non-registrants, “risk” should be assessed as low to negligible absent proof to the contrary. I have a very hard time believing that the very few registrant recidivists didn’t show some kind of indication outside of the crime that led to registration in the first place that re-offense was likely.

Sounds like in NY, this “risk assessment instrument” DETERMINES your punishment after your sentence is satisfied lol.

Zing right to the point expressed in Smith V: “those protections associated with the criminal justice processes.” not identified in the complaint via Mr. X & his nurse wife in Alaska in 97 Same goes for the ” in person component ” involved with the regime like P&P which according to the Rehnquist court stated “held some weight” BUT here it’s been, so strike two! The majority settled on the regimes resemblance to “incarceration” as the proper
“Intermediate scrutiny non dispositive test” when public safety is in manifest intent. The intent described in the State Act’s preamble was probative & put forth in the context of an ex-post facto facial challenge review! This is of course absurd logic. In ex post challenges the text of the law must be identified first by definition as such. And those statutes are easily identified as law referring to past convictions in statute as the touchstone for BOTH sufficient and necessary rationalization for imposing reasonable affirmative restraint! Why? In no conceivable scenario would a party not claim safety or social good as a factor in the passage of law applied to the already convicted criminal. Thereto any test in that specific context which utilizes “good” as a variable will never result in reasonable balance.

Is there a way we can see it without having to register at Thanks!

I would 2nd that request if anyone knows how we can view the article.

@pk good to see you’re still alive. Just an update for you,

Paid the lawyer about a year and a half ago. She sent the petition/suit last October. No word since


Are you saying that it took your Lawyer over 1 year to file the Petition after you had already paid the Lawyer.

I haven’t focused on that issue in about 5 years. But in light of all of the new changes and restrictions, I was considering to revisit this topic with the Lawyer as well this year.

yet these flawed RAI’s reemerge in california’s new law, though under a different name (“static”)

@Tim in WI – A few of them know exactly what they are doing in order to make this all so convoluted, the rest of them are just corrupt and stupid (and powerful). But we will still get this all straightened out sooner or later because we are smarter, righteous and we will be in mass numbers.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x