CT: Sex offender registry should be based on risk

What is the point of a sex offender registry? As a woman and mother of two, I view Connecticut’s sex offender registry as a tool to increase public awareness about offenders living among us and to weigh my safety and the safety of those around me. Full Op-Ed piece

Democrat Jillian Gilchrest represents the 18th House District in West Hartford.

Related posts

Subscribe
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.  
 

6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Would you let you child hop a ride to baseball practice, or dance school with a parent who has a DWI or two mrs. ____? Do you want a registry for that crime or any other? Well….Why Not? FU

As a citizen of this state, I am hoping that positive change will happen and I will one day be able to become a contributing member of society.

Fact is men’s rea isn’t required for strict liability sex offenses. Therefore regimes based on a deviant propensity or appetite is errant without a accurate AND valid assessment on an individual case basis. A single occurrence does not a pattern make. If past behavior is indicative of future behavior the founders were correct in prohibiting the use of ex post language in law making. The insufficient nexus lies in plain reason and not emotional or political security. If you’re going to pin the need for SOR on risk propensity it must be narrowly tailored to match the modus, precisely because an overbroad approach impinges too much unnecessarily.

Just simply get rid of the registry and trust no one. That would be the safest, however, pretty lonely.

I will give this op-ed writer two dollars for every sex offense she stops starting on June 10th 2027 through June 10th 2037. To be clear the offenses had to have been at risk of happening between the aforementioned time frame. Also for complete fairness anyone who would have gone on to commit one or more offenses must be someone who hasn’t been in legal trouble previously. Let’s see how well the “risk” based model actually works. I think seven and a half years is long enough to find potentially at risk people and prevent them from ever committing a sex offense.