IL: Bill would make no-contact orders for sexual offenders permanent

[ – 4/14/21]

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WICS/WRSP) — A new bill making its way through the Senate would protect sexual assault survivors from their attackers for life.

Senate Bill 2277, sponsored by State Sen. Steve Stadelman, D-Rockford, aims to protect sexual assault survivors from ever seeing their attacker again.

This legislation would make civil no-contact orders permanent if the assailant is criminally convicted of sexual assault.

Currently, under law, people must renew no-contact orders every two years.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Willing to bet that over 90% of the time, no registrant ever tries to contact their victims anyway. This bill is stupid and unnecessary – grandstanding at its finest.

What happens if the victim wants contact with someone who did harm to them at one time and decide not to proceed with a no contact order? Government overstepping its bonds once again

And what about the situations in which the victim(s) is a family member and victim & perpetrator have reconciled and would like to have contact with each other??

Does “see” include a picture? If the person who committed the assault is a prominent person on the web, how could the person not “see” their assaulter? And what about working? If a victim goes into a restaurant and the assaulter is serving food? Is that “seeing?”

A solution looking for a problem…smfh..I wish these reporters, in the area they are reporting from, would give us of an example where a registrant ‘terrorized’ his victim with his prescence..oh my….

Don’t see the issue with this. If you can’t seem to treat another person with the respect they deserve or have earned, then stay the fuck away from them.

Stadleman is a former Rockford Newsman. Before his political career Wtvo employed him as such. Obviously he has al ot n the ball, but I’m not so sure the bill he proposes is enforceable.

Makes sense to me

Not sure why this is controversial. If a victim files a no-contact order against someone who is later convicted of a sexual assault against that person, then why should’t the no-contact order be permanent?