NO! We don’t need another sex offender law to fight

By Sandy….

A woman in Oklahoma has gotten the attention of state legislators after creating a Facebook page protesting that the uncle who was convicted for abusing her as a child was allowed to live next door to her. After his recent release from prison, Harold English of Bristow, Oklahoma, moved into his mother’s home. The mother of English and grandmother of Danyelle Deyer has said that her son had nowhere else to live.

The exclusionary zones in Bristow make English finding another residence very problematic; however, he is now under a temporary order forcing him to leave the home. Legislators have rushed to close this “loophole” in the law, and House Bill 1124 will be making its way through the Oklahoma legislature in the next session.

It is expected to pass with  little to no opposition, and if it does so, it will forbid any convicted sex offender from living or being within 1,000 feet of the home of his or her victim.

This is a move that could prove disastrous.

Helpful media outlets are already counting up the states that have no restrictions about where registrants may live in relation to their former victims. Lawmakers in other states are paying attention. How long will it be before they too feel the need to enact similar legislation? If and when they do, they will be repeating the pattern that created today’s chaos to begin with: taking a specific situation and deciding that the remedy for it needs to apply to everyone who falls under the same broad category and often, compounding its flaws, applying it retroactively.

Dictating where any American citizen may not be or reside after that citizen has fulfilled his or her court-ordered punishment for a crime is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. That has been and is continuing to be recognized in courts across the land as punitive. Lawmakers would do well to keep that in mind before piling on more restrictions that will be subject to more and more lawsuits.

Additionally, a law such as this one would have negative effects on a certain type of sex offender therapy.

Virtually all child sexual abuse is committed by a relative or someone else close to the family, as happened in this case. For children age six and under, the perpetrator is found to be a close family member in close to 50% of the cases.

Family reunification therapy is one tool available to treatment providers, and one that in the right circumstances is very valuable. It is a program designed for offenders who recognize and take responsibility for their own behavior and are willing and able to live within the limits placed upon them by the treatment program, the judicial system, and society.

It is a survivor-led process, in partnership with non-offending caregivers, with the priority concern being the safety of the child. If at any point the child who was sexually abused does not wish to move forward with reunification, the process is stopped immediately.

When desired by all relevant persons, this therapy model offers hope for recovery for both victims and perpetrators. It has been found especially valuable with juveniles when the offending situation was that of an older sibling against a younger or more vulnerable one. For many, this type of therapy, with its emphasis on accepting responsibility, forgiveness, and accountability in equal parts, has been a lifesaver for both former victims and former perpetrators.

Lowered re-offense rates are closely linked to an offender’s ability to gain and maintain stable living conditions as well as family support. The family reunification model provides one path to achieving these goals. Legislation such as HB 1124 in Oklahoma would remove that option from those who want it. That, coupled with the fact that it runs afoul of the protections of the Constitution, makes it an extremely unwise choice.

Those who are forced to live as registered citizens already have multiple abridgements of constitutional rights and protections and a plethora of fodder for fighting lawsuits. We do not need more.


Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Sandy is communications director for NARSOL, editor-in-chief of the Digest, and a writer for the Digest and the NARSOL website. Additionally, she participates in updating and managing the website and assisting with a variety of organizational tasks.

  • This topic has 82 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 9 months ago by Scholarly endevour of historical times & merit.
Viewing 22 reply threads
  • Author
    • #19411 Reply



      • #19887 Reply



    • #19414 Reply

      NH Registrant

      Yes. I agree. They will reinstate the Residency Restriction laws if they allow this to continue. The girl shouldn’t be worried because if he tried anything again, they would lock him up for a much longer time!

      • #19428 Reply


        I personally don’t see much of a problem if they already do the same to all other crimes where there was a victim of violence, but to single out sex offenders as if a sex offense is worse than beating a innocent person for whatever reason then going around them afterwards for them to feel intimidated is pure nonsense.

      • #20274 Reply

        Jeremy from Indiana

        I don’t think you get the purpose of a law like this. The purpose of this law is completely different than the purpose of the majority of registration laws. This law has absolutely nothing to do with recidivism or even safety. It has more to do with the psychological effects on the victim. Just the mere presence of their abuser could spark all kinds of psychological problems such as anxiety, depression, PTSD, etc.

        Imagine if you were physically bullied in high school by one kid repeatedly to the point you were legitimately scared every single time you saw him. Now imagine that kid moves next door to you a few years later. It doesn’t matter if you are now a martial arts expert, you will still revert back to your fears.

        In the movie “Central Intelligence” with Dwayne Johnson, this point is illustrated perfectly when Johnson’s character was bullied by the bank manager even though Johnson could easily take him out. This is what a law like this is trying to prevent; further harm to the victim, even if it is only psychological.

    • #19415 Reply


      There’s also the issue of statutory offenses where the “perpetrator” later marries the “victim” and they now not only live together but have several children. What’s supposed to happen in those instances? Husband and wife can no longer live together? What about when it’s a juvie offense between siblings/cousins/relatives and the court has already determined it’s safe for the offender to return home? What about if the offender already lived in/ owned the home before the offense and the victim was a neighbor? What if, without realizing it, the victim moves into the neighborhood where the offender lives and then later becomes aware–in fact, what’s to stop victims from moving in close to their offenders to drive them out of stable housing? Most residency restrictions dodge the ex-post facto argument by grandfathering in those who were already living in a place before the restriction was passed, is a home owner now no longer allowed to live in his own home, is someone who is settled now forced to move? The potential legal nightmares of this law, not to mention the ethical and moral ones, are staggering.

    • #19419 Reply

      Alphonse Casanova Sr.

      The problem I have with Sex Offender laws is that there are only a few states that have levels, (1) lowest chance for a recurrence no info is posted on the internet. (2) info posted on the internet name, address, photos. Has to check in every month. (3) worse level highest chance to commit another offense.
      So one of the the states that has levels is New York 1, 2, 3,

      I lived in NY when the offense happened I was determined to be a level (1 ). but since the arrest I have moved back to my home state of Connecticut which has no levels all who on the registry in CT are treated the same. So if you are on the registry in CT everyone is listed on the internet this is very dangerous because everyone can see what you look like know where you live etc. Why should a level (1) be treated the same as a 2, or 3 and be exposed on the internet.

      • #19427 Reply


        Even the Tier levels are idiotic. A person most of the time becomes a Tier III based off the offense alone, NOT because they have a high chance of offending! Whats the difference between someone raping a woman or molesting a child? The child molestation will result in a Tier III due to what happened, not because said person did something worse to the child than the adult, in fact the same crime can happen but one will be consider Tier III and a predator due to the age of the child. I don’t know about you, but for me, a sexually violent predator is someone who has been convicted multiple times or was like Jeffery Dahmer, NOT someone with one conviction.

        • #19436 Reply

          Jonny everyman

          Depends on your state. I am on a state where your tier is based on risk level.

          • #19456 Reply


            And WHO determines the risk level??? That is the million $$$ question!! I have only ONE felony and that for not registering in 2009!! And that was my last SO offence. The rest are misdemeanors!! But Im a level 3 right along with the rapists and multi- felony perps!!!

          • #19588 Reply

            Jonny everyman

            Risk is determined by whether you were a person of power (teacher? Coach), was it a stranger, do you have family ties to discourage reoffense?

            It’s unfortunate you are a tier 3 but you didn’t give much information about why.

          • #19886 Reply



          • #19970 Reply

            Jonny everyman

            Nonsense I think sex offenders laws should be reasonable. I can’t get with your “everything goes” philsophy.

          • #19511 Reply

            Tyrus Young

            If States were ever serious about risk assessment, and used extensive studies on likely future offenders, SOs would be left off of the list and those with no offense would have to be registered!

      • #19884 Reply



        • #19899 Reply

          Robin Vander Wall

          Trish, I have approved several of your comments tonight only because they appear to be relevant. However, I do not plan to spend that much time editing comments/replies of yours in the future. So, please do me a favor if you want your replies to continue being approved: 1) Drop the ALL CAPS caps format. I will never approve that again. 2) Enough with the exclamation marks. Two exclamation marks are perfectly sufficient and ten are taxing on the eyeballs.

          There are several of us who approve comments/replies. Yours were left for me merely because I am probably the most “liberal” of those of us who approve them. Were it left up to the others, all your comments/replies would have been trashed. So, I’m your only friend here. Please abide by my request in your future replies. We appreciate your input and participation. But we are not fond of screaming (ALL CAPS) and grammatical hubris!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    • #19417 Reply


      I have used many forms of logic to examine this. If parents would be parents and treat everyone as a possible SO. There would be no need for registries. What about people not on them that do a first offense? No registry helped. Either way. They serve little to no purpose. But people being people. Have to be scared.

      • #19433 Reply


        It does not matter what you want! Did you not read the article! It is unconstitutional to restrict/punish after sentence completed! Laws are based upon offense! We do not have a pre-crime unit! If a person continues offending the punishment is suppose to increase! 1st 2nd etc. ….Also treatment is not mutilating! This is a violation of human rights! Prison yes! Castration no! The government cannot have exceptions to make a warm fuzzy safe feeling! Have you ever though about being a real close friend to an ex offender! Everyone needs to help everyone in life! The law especially without prejudice/bias! Is this really happening! Or are we the people jumping on the band wagon! Mainstream foolish and unhelpful logic/politics/emotional support and everything you can think of ! Thanks!

        • #19885 Reply


          @Je Vizzusi read my post please!

    • #19431 Reply

      Je Vizzusi

      I don’t want the paroled registrant living so close to the victim but the penal institution and state should supply temp housing until he gets back on his feet. Easy and no new,law needed.

      • #19446 Reply


        There is the question of what if the offender owns the home near victim?
        There is a program like that in New York where registered are being held beyond their prison time in prison under the guise of residential tretment facilities. A sham.

    • #19441 Reply


      We certainly don’t need another law about SO. He who commits a crime is tried and convicted. Sent to prison. Does the time and may still be on probation after their released. They have to register, face residency restrictions. In a lot of cases, can’t find employment. May not be able to live with his wife and children. Can’t attend church!! Their picture and all information is posted on the internet. Now this!! When does the “punishment” stop. This is the only crime in America that after you spend a long time in prison, still face all these obsticles, banishment and humiliation.
      Lets stop scaring our children about the wrong people. More education is needed and less polititians who use scare tactics to get elected.

    • #19448 Reply

      Lori/OK VOICES

      I have contacted both legislators involved in writing this bill to set appointments to speak to them personally.

    • #19447 Reply

      Jeremy from Indiana

      This is one of those situations where I have a mixed reaction. While I don’t agree with residency restrictions because they are ineffective and unconstitutional, I am inclined to allow such a law as this to pass if proper safeguards are in place. Of course, they probably won’t be in many states that enact such a law.

      First of all, a law such as this should only apply to offenders on supervision. Any law that removes liberty without affording due process is unconstitutional. Second, as the article notes, family reunification should be an exception to the law. My view is that the victim or the victim’s therapist should be able to apply for an exception if the victim wants to resume contact with the former abuser and the parole/probation officer and/or treatment provider allows it. This is the same process for registrants on supervision who want to resume contact with their own children when they were not the victims of the crime.

      Many of the commentators on here are trying to bring up the same arguments relating to recidivism, but that is not the purpose of a law such as this. This is to protect the victim from further anxiety, depression, and other emotional problems. The offender does not have to re-offend for these problems to exist. Just their mere presence can cause this.

      There are similar laws for other crimes. In my state of Indiana, a person convicted of theft cannot be around the area the theft happened while on supervision. This is a similar law as long as it’s only applied to those on supervision.

      • #19454 Reply

        Sandy Rozek

        Jeremy, the bill as written will apply to anyone on the registry even after they are no longer on supervision. Yes, when one is still on probation or parole or any community supervision, he has constraints and restrictions. When that has ended, the sentence is satisfied. There should be no more restrictions where one may go or what he may do as long as he is not breaking the law. That is the entire point of the article. The situation being addressed is making this restriction applicable to ALL on the registry.

        • #19458 Reply

          Jeremy from Indiana

          I realize that Sandy, but I wanted to be clear what I believe we are fighting against. There are many times where I feel advocates for reform are asking for too much, such as removal of probation/parole restrictions that are legitimate forms of punishment.

          I feel that if we tailor our advocacy to the issues that are actually effective at 1) protecting victims and 2) restoring unconstitutionally removed rights, then we will fight the right battles.

          I am a strong proponent of offering up alternative solutions to lawmakers that passes true constitutional muster and potentially satisfies the public’s need for the feeling of safety. Without alternative solutions, we may just come off to them as a bunch of whiners.

          • #19477 Reply


            “There are many times where I feel advocates for reform are asking for too much, such as removal of probation/parole restrictions that are legitimate forms of punishment”

            The way I see it is; if they want to punish us for 10 years then they may as well just make us do the full 10 year prison term. What’s the point of being out in the free world with restrictions and using the excuse that we’re still being punished?
            Probation is a waste of money. Our tax dollars pay some baffoon who couldn’t pass the postal exam with a cheat sheet and their justification as to why we can’t live a normal life is to use the “you’re still being punished” nonsense.

          • #19516 Reply

            Jeremy from Indiana


            Every prisoner has the ability to refuse probation or parole and reinstate their incarceration, so if that’s what you would have rather done, why didn’t you? I’m not trying to be mean or argumentative. Were you not aware of the issues you would face? When I was on parole, I couldn’t be on this site. My internet access was limited to the unemployment office only for job searching. I wasn’t allowed to drink even though my offense had absolutely nothing to do with alcohol and I was not even allowed to see or even talk to my kids. I was also required to attend treatment from the beginning after successfully completing a treatment program.

            Your second argument rest on the costs on taxpayers for probation/parole. The cost of supervising someone is only a fraction of the cost of keeping them incarcerated, so supervision is actually cheaper for taxpayers. Of course it’s not cheaper than just letting the person completely free, but that’s not an option after someone has been sentenced through due process to a certain amount of time.

            I understand you have issues with how parole and probation work. I did too. That is an issue for convicts of all types in general though and is not what this site advocates for in my opinion. I’m sure there are other forums for that. This site is dedicated to reforming unconstitutional sex offender laws that punish people under the guise of civil regulation. Since probation and parole are labelled as punishment, they do not apply in this fight. If we don’t pick our battles and limit them to the most important to this population, we won’t be able to make any progress.

          • #19537 Reply



            I knew I’d get probation but I did not know what the conditions/restrictions of probation would be until AFTER I made my plea deal. Then I was given the list I’d have to adhere to.

            Also, I feel probation is useless for ANY crime. My reasons why? Simple;

            If you commit a crime that COULD get you 10 yrs incarcerated but the D.A. decides to give you only 2 or 3 yrs to serve in prison, why can’t it just be that and we’re done with it? If my consensual relationship with a teenager wasn’t “all that bad” for 10 yrs of incarceration, then give me the measly 2 yrs and then let me get back on with my life.
            You keep saying “punishment”. No, it’s not just punishment, it’s also very lame EXCUSES. For example; The probation officer will say “You can’t use a computer because you met this young girl via a website”.
            Yeah, and? When I’m off probation I can use a computer all I want and being off probation doesn’t change how I met her.
            What probation is saying is – “You cannot be trusted”.
            Well wait a minute….if I’m only on probation for say 5 yrs, I’m not to be trusted for only those 5 yrs? What!!??
            That makes 0 sense.

            Nothing can bring back the time spent in prison; Relatives pass away, your children are born, someone gets married and you cannot be there. So WTF more do they need from us by giving us MORE “punishment” (as you call it) on probation?
            Every single human being is on “probation”. Don’t break the law and you won’t ever get arrested. That’s basically probation for everyone.

            Also, here in CT , our state budget is so bad that over the last 3 yrs or so, they’ve laid off several probation officers. Mine was one of them and I had to start seeing a new one after already establishing a somewhat good relationship with the previous one.

            And I also don’t try to include “parole” in my discourse about supervision because we don’t ask for parole or get given parole automatically. We EARN parole. And parole can be denied no matter how good you’ve been while in prison.

            If they truly feel the need for probation (I don’t see why) then let probation be simple; Stay out of trouble and prove that you can get along well in society.
            Forcing us to not do this or that is not proving anything other than we can adhere to a direct order. Bullocks!

          • #19592 Reply

            Jeremy from Indiana

            Parole and probation are only legitimate punishments if they are given IN LIEU OF incarceration, which in your scenarios, they are. It’s cheaper for the taxpayers and provides the prisoner a stepping stone to full freedom. Of course, I would argue that registrants are never fully free as long as we’re on the registry, but that’s not what our current debate is about.

            The idea behind having strict restrictions on parole/probation is to create a habit with the former offender. You mention that many of those restrictions are gone after supervision. If someone spends 5 years on supervision, they have created a 5 year habit of better than acceptable behavior due to restrictions. One of the things I learned in my effective treatment program is that my best thinking and behavior is what got me into this mess in the first place. The idea behind supervision is to put you into a higher category of thinking than normal, so if you mess up a little, you don’t fall below normal into illegal territory.

            When we were convicted of our crimes, we showed society that we cannot behave legally. Incarceration aims to force us to behave legally while supervision allows us to be a little free as we learn to use our new behavior. The only other option is to stay incarcerated the full time. Reducing sentences as you suggest is a lost battle.

          • #19587 Reply

            Jonny everyman

            My state has both supervised and unsupervised probation. If your lawyer was worth a salt he would have explained the difference.

          • #19752 Reply


            Jonny Everyman,

            You love to take pop shots at me with vindictive sarcasm. “I know you don’t like the punishment for your crime” hahahaha WHAT?!

            Probation is ….listen up pal…. USELESS!!!

            It’s not “punishment” to not be able to shop at a mall. Something I’ve done a thousand times in my life BEFORE my offense. It’s lame excuses and lack of trust on the part of the court support services division; dept of adult probation.
            It gives them an excuse to have more reasons to brainwash themselves as well as us, the clients.
            No probation officer ever said to me;

            “You can’t go to a mall because you’re still on punishment”.

            They HAVE said;

            “You can’t go to a mall because what if there’s a pretty teenager girl there and you’re not sure of her age and you talk to her anyway?”

            EXCUSES! EXCUSES! So I guess I’ll just wait till
            My probation is over and go talk to whomever the hell I please , eh?


          • #19533 Reply



            Some sex offenders have NO CHOICE. They are legislatively placed on lifetime parole AFTER they serve out ALL OF THEIR SENTENCE. TN is one such state. Certain offenses classified as “violent” even though the offense was not violent in the conventional sense, get lifetime parole.

          • #19590 Reply

            Jeremy from Indiana

            Tennessee registrant,

            I agree with your argument. Placing someone on supervision after completion of sentence is a violation of due process, a violation of ex post facto in some cases, and is unconstitutional. I agree with fighting that scheme. What I don’t agree with is when someone is given supervision IN LIEU OF incarceration that was handed down at sentencing, they want to complain about the restrictions.

            In your situation, the fight is not really to remove the restrictions of supervision, the fight is to remove the requirement for supervision without due process. I see a huge difference.

          • #19532 Reply


            Jeremy, is it not wrong to strip a sex offender of the first amendment right to legitimate free speech on-line? It is well-settled law that the government may NOT suppress all lawful speech as a means to suppress unlawful speech. Also, Packingham v. North Carolina also ruled that even sex offenders have First Amendment rights and that those rights are most vulnerable to abuse at the hands of the state because registered offenders are a reviled and disfavored population. Ever hear of the “tyranny of the majority”? What about offenders who have this restriction but never used the Internet as an instrument in any crime, sexual or otherwise and has demonstrated no desire or propensity to do so??Are their rights to just be subjugated and all anyone can say is, “tough noogies! he or she is on state supervision indefinitely.”????

        • #19474 Reply


          “First of all, a law such as this should only apply to offenders on supervision”

          I think everyone here knows my feelings about this “supervision” crap. We can probably count on 1 hand how many people have ever been hit with lifetime probation. That being said, and knowing that for most all of us probation eventually comes to an end, why are so many of you (of us, of just people in general) so supportive of restrictions being out on those of us on supervision? Wouldn’t being on release supervision be the PERFECT time to PROVE that your lesson was learned and also the DUMBEST time for someone to reoffend ?
          It seems to me like you (as well as many others) are saying “While you’re on supervision you shouldn’t do this or that. But once you’re off, go do whatever”.
          Well, once we’re off probation, etc, the offense itself hasn’t miraculously gone away has it?
          Supervision is useless. It’s just a way to employ those who “supervise” us.

          • #19479 Reply


            Hey Maestro,


          • #19536 Reply


            Is that really a “probation” or is it just the actual sex offender laws of your state?
            If you’re not going to a probation office every week to see an officer, you’re not on probation.

            And I find it hard to believe there are enough probation officers and money in the state budget to fulfill lifetime probation.

          • #19531 Reply


            Maestro, The state of TN has lifetime supervision. I know. I’m on it! According to TN Code Annotated 39-13-524 violent sex offenders (including rapists and child molesters and those guilty of statutory rape by an authority figure OR any attempt of these) are subject to community supervision for life once they complete their prison sentence or time on regular probation/parole/community corrections.

            According to TCA 39-13-525 an offender has to be on lifetime supervision for a minimum of 15 calendar years without any violations. At the end of 15 years the offender can petition the sentencing court to be removed from lifetime supervision, but the court is under NO DUTY to grant the petition. If an offender is turned down, he or she must wait 3 years to renew the petition. Again, the court is under no obligation to ever release an offender from supervision. The state of TN has many sex offenders on lifetime supervision. So don’t discount lifetime supervision. I’m on it and I hate having my rights abridged.

          • #19582 Reply

            Jonny everyman

            I know you hate all punishment for your crime but supervision is exactly that. It’s a part of your sentence. If you don’t think you should be punished at all for a sex offense I can’t say I think you get the point of this community. It’s for seasonal sex offense laws. Not a free for all to do what you want.

      • #19494 Reply


        Jeremy, I’d rather NOT have a statewide law of general application on this subject, and just let any living restrictions be handled on a case-by-case basis through the parole department (for offenders released from prison early) and the probation department (for offenders who are fully done with the incarceration portion of their sentence, or were never sent to prison at all).

        If any law is needed, it would simply be one authorizing parole and probation officers to forbid offenders from living (and working?) too close to where their victim lives (and works?). Require that such a restriction be well-founded on the facts and circumstances of the case and the people involved.

    • #19453 Reply

      Capt Charles Munsey Jr. USN (Ret)

      My daughter, who was the victim 18 years ago, and I have reconciled and are now good friends. She has moved to be close by. We are helping each other and are doing quite well. Any law that would have prevented this reunion would be criminal unto itself.

    • #19459 Reply

      William M. Hart

      As one who is judged daily, I hate to judge others. However, this victims decision sounds more like revenge than a legitimate safety concern.

    • #19463 Reply

      Suzy A

      Because no amount of punishment ever takes away the event itself, once a sentence is served the one who is harmed could still be upset and may seek further recourse. This could play out in the one who was harmed intentionally moving within the proximity in order to have the one who offended be forced to move. This could happen at anytime, even decades later.

      • #19493 Reply


        How is the registrant supposed to know the current home address of his victim in the future?
        Sure, he would know where the victim lived at the time of the offense, but what about years down the line?
        Do we WANT a law mandating that sex-offense VICTIMS have to register their addresses with the government, too, to make enforcement of this new law possible?
        What about a 1000-foot restriction on places where the victim works?
        So…. that would mean the victims have to register their employment, too. I don’t think victims will want to do that. That’s a good basis to oppose this law.
        Are convicted criminals going to get notice of these victims’ new places of employment and homes? BAD IDEA, all the way around.

        • #20083 Reply

          Daniel wilson

          Oklahoma a few years ago tried to pass a law requiring victims to register for their safety. It failed because victims wouldn’t have it.

    • #19496 Reply

      Darrel Hoffman

      I don’t understand this. The “victim” is now an adult, so why would she worry about this uncle? If he’s a true “pedophile” he wouldn’t be interested in a grown woman, unless she’s worried he’d want to beat her behind for putting him in prison in the first place. If there is no evidence of that, all Oklahoma is going to do is cause another court battle against an unconstitutional law. However, if SCOTUS hadn’t opened the door in the first place by allowing registry laws to stand, we wouldn’t be in this predicament.

      • #19539 Reply

        R. Arens

        Interesting. I too, look at the word “pedophile” more as a verb than a noun. A man can commit a sex crime once in his life and never do it again. Because he has a rap sheet for a single incident throughout the course of his life doesn’t mean he’s psychologically wired to keep doing it over and over. “Pedophile” is a word of the ignorant. I committed theft, arson, public intoxication and no one labels me a boozer or a firebug or a thief. When it comes to sex crimes, whoah nelly, look out hide your daughters cause the big bad perv is coming. (Gimme a break!) ya. Those guys are stupid ignorant. They’ll never know the goings on in a sex offenders lives and how petty ass bogus it is until they themselves, their friends or family has to go through it.

        • #19557 Reply

          Sandy Rozek

          The word ‘pedophile’ is a noun, and it is a medical term, not a legal one. It has become popular to use the word as a synonym for ‘child molester’ and, even more in error, for anyone on the registry. Many who have convictions for child molestation are not pedophiles, and many have pedophilia who have never touched a child inappropriately or committed a crime. No one in the U.S. is charged or convicted of pedophilia. It is a medical diagnosis.

          • #19581 Reply

            Jonny everyman

            Good points Sandy. It applies to those who have a sexual interest in pre pubescent children. It’s unfortunate if someone has relations with a 16 or 17 year old they still get labeled one.

            My evaluation noted it’s normal for a man to have a slight interest in pubescent teens. The key was not to act on them.

          • #19638 Reply


            It’s nature that drives older males to youthful females.
            It’s the law that says “no” to nature.

      • #19580 Reply

        Jonny everyman

        It’s not entirely that simple… abusers don’t stop the abuse because someone grows up.

        That said I agree with you this is taking the registry too far

    • #19495 Reply


      The problem is very simple. Fairness, or even logical, rational thinking will NEVER apply to SO laws. The Supreme Court has found registry laws valid, based on an outright LIE. They stated, in the decision, that SO have a high rate of recidivism. That was the BASIS for the ruling. They now KNOW that to be untrue, yet the law still stands. In addition, when the ex post facto provision was included in the Bill of Rights, they discussed whether it should apply to all law, criminal and civil. They CHOSE to write the constitutional protection to say (all) ex post facto laws are illegal. Thomas Jefferson DESCRIBED them as EQUALLY unjust in civil as well as criminal cases. The framers KNEW the difference, yet did NOT choose to allow it in civil cases. Using Calder v. Bull as a basis to permit ex post facto laws is simply wrong. Until someone again brings this to the Supreme Court to challenge the validity of their ruling in Smith v. Doe, nothing CAN change. Unfortunately, any politician who attempts to bring fairness to SO laws will be committing political suicide. And it’s unlikely even the ACLU will touch the issue. Anyone who advocates anything less than death or castration for convicted SO is immediately attacked and ostracized. It’s too bad the Supreme Court can’t reverse a ruling they KNOW was made under false pretenses.

      • #19538 Reply

        R. Arens

        In Iowa, whenever (for example) the life special sentence is challenged in Supreme Court, the court always shoots down the plaintiff citing “the interests of public safety” as the primary deciding factor. To hell with civil rights, statutory law and case laws. These things do not apply in the state of Iowa let alone very many other jurisdictions. The only way to win is patience. Plain and simple. Where I come from, the only way changes are made is when a sex offender law is no longer economically feasible to fund, the law causes some adverse effect to the preservation of public safety or it brings about prison overcrowding. Usually if it’s effecting the states self serving status quo, then they do something about it.

        • #19579 Reply


          You are correct. I think there are multiple challenges to registry laws. First is ‘compelling government interest’. If you remove the false assumption about recidivism, the law fails. Also, as i mentioned in my original post, ex post facto was INTENDED to apply to both civil AND criminal laws. In addition, and probably closer to your theory as to cost; registry laws may also be a ‘bill of attainder’. Why does the public need protection from SO, but not from those who commit burglary, robbery, assault or murder ? Either the public needs protection against criminals, or they don’t. It’s illegal to pass a law that discriminates agains only one class of people, even if they are criminals.
          But again, the problem is finding someone with the courage AND the MONEY to make the challenge. There isn’t a single politician who doesn’t know the basis for registry laws was a lie, yet they will ALWAYS support any additions or restrictions on offenders.
          Furthermore, look at the chances anyone has to be removed from the registry, even in those states that ‘have’ such provisions. The process is backwards. You are automatically guilty of the possibility to reoffend. There are NO facts or statistics to back up the assumption. You are not innocent until proven guilty. You are simply guilty. They claim that the time since the offense is taken into account. It is NOT. If their interpretation of the Static 99, or whatever says you could reoffend, you’re finished. Their ‘theory’ trumps that fact that you can show DECADES of not reoffending which is absolute PROOF that you don’t pose a risk. It;s really no different from the civil forfeiture laws. Constitutionally illegal. Nowhere in the Constitution was permission give to ignore the Constitution. Property cannot be taken without a trial. There are no loopholes or exclusions to this. Congress is PROHIBITED from passing such laws. (as well as ex post facto) Legally it would require an amendment to the Constitution. The government simply ignores it by again claiming the Constitution doesn’t apply in civil cases. Even with CAFRA the amount seized by the government has gone from less that $400 million in 2000, to OVER $2.5 BILLION in 2010.
          Bottom line is we seem to have have no recourse against a government run amok.

          • #19591 Reply


            Good stuff Tom also add to this the fact that when the USA Supreme Court finally admits the registry is punishment it will become a double jeopardy violation.

          • #19637 Reply


            Yesterday, the man who killed his gay neighbor for having a crush on him and telling him about his secret crush for him on the Jenny Jones show back in 1995 was released from prison early for “good behavior”. No one seems to be in an uproar.
            But let it be one of us that makes the news about being released after a high profile case and we’d never hear the end of the bitching and complaining.
            Funny our society, eh? Sex is worse than death.

      • #19530 Reply


        It’s really sad when the man that wrote the article in “Psychology Today” about the “frightening and high” myth admitted years later that there was NO scientific basis for that claim since he was jockeying to get a lucrative sex offender treatment contract with the state of California. This disreputable tripe saw dollar signs and wrote a lie that has persisted well beyond the mid-to-late ’80s when it was penned. He has since come out and denounced the lie himself, but it’s the basis for precedence in jurisprudence and will likely never be renounced by the very court that has relied on that lie to evaluate sex offender laws since that initial ruling.

    • #19484 Reply

      Steven Peterson

      I have somewhat mixed feelings about this piece. As an RSO, I am against any new laws passed to harass us. Our society needs someone to hate. Gays and minorities (of which I am both) are off limits. The RSO has become todays Ni***r.

      As an example today I had to go to court on a minor crime. Both sides had agreed to community service in lieu of jailtime.

      immediately after I had pled guilty my court appointed “attorney” pointed out my 25 year old sex offense and said I wasn’t eligible for community service. Bam! 5 days in jail for being an RSO. It will be a wonder if I don’t go all nuclear in a lawyers office someday.

      The other side of this coin is that if the guy who molested me moved in next to me today, even though it was 40+ years ago. I’d probably beat the crap out of him daily.

      • #19534 Reply



        You are a prime example for the bleeding hearts to stop lumping everyone together and condemning us.
        One of the issues that sex offender “treatment” (what a joke) had talked about several times in regards to the crimes of others in the group is that when children are molested it has a life long and life altering effect on them and they may act out the same things that were done to them when they’re older. Keep in mind I’m on the train track of “save the children/help the children” bandwagon. Ok. So….

        You were molested as a child, and in that moment people and victims advocates would have coddled you and felt sorry for you. Keeping in mind that they are the ones who also said that victims like yourself might act out what was done to you.
        So what happens…..?
        You end up doing something that is deemed a sexual offense and suddenly you go from “poor victim” to “disgusting low life pervert”.

        Isn’t it ironic?
        This should be thrown in the faces of lawmakers and anyone who commits a sexual offense because of what was done to them in their youth should be excused from ever having to register as a sex offender.

        Funny how human beings don’t give a shit about one another when we’re adults, eh?

        • #19960 Reply

          Donnie G

          This is a little off point but valid in the overall RSO social stigma. I’ve always thought that ” if you won’t allow us to live then give us the right to die” RSO should be allowed to CHOOSE a legal ,federally santioned choice to be euthanized . They don’t want us around and we sometimes realize that with no employment, friends,housing and constant threats and harassment that we don’t want to live an utterly unproductive life.

    • #19480 Reply


      ALL Criminal Sex Offenders in Alabama are on permanent “probation” and have to report to the county sheriff’s office every quarter for the rest of their lives!!

    • #19513 Reply


      How about she move somewhere else? She has no restriction to where she moves, where she lives, where she can work, whom she can associate with. Seems like it would be a lot easier if she moved.

      • #19535 Reply

        Tony From Long Island

        I hope that was sarcasm.

      • #19529 Reply


        The victim moving won’t be an option. No lawmaker would dare make such a politically (although correct) demand. After all, she was the innocent child victim of this man and as we all know the mantra is that the victim’s “damaged goods” for life. I know I’ll be cold-hearted for this, but I’m going to tell a truth far too many others are afraid to tell out loud in public. Many victims stay victims for life because of their own choice to do so. When you’re the “poor innocent victim” people feel sorry for you and act as if they’re obligated to meet the every whim of the victim to make up for the injustice perpetrated on them so many years ago. Everybody feels sorry for the victim. Nobody feels sorry for the abuser, although I will readily state the abuser sealed his or her own fate when they committed the crime. That’s not to say I agree with these unconstitutional and draconian sex offender laws that are more about revenge and retaliation than true scientifically proven steps to ensure justice for the victim AND REFORM FOR THE OFFENDER ONCE TIME HAS BEEN SERVED.

    • #19597 Reply


      How is an offender supposed to know where their victim(s) are living?

    • #19589 Reply

      Me In Manassas

      I’m an RSO as well. We do not need another law. Restraining orders would be granted in her case. Neighbor who is a cop informed, sheriff on speed dial. The US has enough laws.

      • #19658 Reply

        diane taylor

        I have been doing some fact checking under the current laws one of our past president married his wife at 16 which would make him a sexual predator and the first supreme court justice married his wife who was 17 and him 28 ok statuary rape more than 6 years her age.On April 28, 1774, Jay married Sarah Van Brugh Livingston, eldest daughter of the New Jersey Governor William Livingston and his wife. At the time of the marriage, Sarah was seventeen years old and John was twenty-eight.[15] how many other supreme court Justices and government lawmakers and families would also be called sex offenders under the strict liablity laws.

        • #19664 Reply

          Robin Vander Wall

          These sorts of inquiries have always been fascinating to me. I’ve always hoped that someone might actually write a paper or an academic journal article which set out to discover how many people of historical merit would end up as registered sex offenders if held to the cultural mores of our present day and time.

          Two significant persons come immediately to my mind, and you may already be speaking about one of them. John Marshall, who was the fourth chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was in his mid twenties when he first met Polly who would eventually become his wife. Polly was 13 or 14 at the time. They married before Polly turned 16. One might presume that they touched in an intimate way before they were ever married. But who knows, right?

          Then there is Thomas Jefferson. Much has been written about whether or not Jefferson fathered a child (or more) by his slave-servant, Sally Hemmings. What we DO know is that Sally traveled with Jefferson to France in 1784. Jefferson was 44 and a widow. Sally was 12. When Sally returned to Monticello 26 months later, she was pregnant. By whom we may never know. But her descendants have always maintained that Jefferson was the father. There is SOME historical evidence to support that. If it were ever to be established beyond any reasonable doubt, then I believe it would be fair to label Jefferson as foremost among Americans who, in this day and time, would be registered as a sex offender.

          • #19672 Reply


            When I lived in Charlottesville, I met an old black lady who claimed to be Jefferson’s great great great granddaughter. I never did ask her if she had DNA proof though.

          • #19684 Reply

            Robin Vander Wall

            What’s most interesting to me is that when the initial “scandal” regarding Sally first emerged in 1802 (the result of a disaffected, former confidante of Jefferson by the name of James Callender), it had nothing at all to do with age. But it had everything to do with race. Miscegenation was a crime in most jurisdictions during the 19th century. So, the fact that Jefferson might have fathered a child with a black woman was the exclusive thrust of the scandal. Even to this day, I’ve never read anything about Sally’s young age…which, of course, would be the thrust of the attack at this late date.

          • #20106 Reply

            Find a Grad student to research and write

            Robin – interesting thinking you present here. Find a grad student (history, pysch, sociology or other) at a local university needing to do a paper with this topic. Provide some $$ to assist with the education and see what you get. It is a “different” topic for sure, but one that may draw some interest in our country’s history along with the attitudes of the day throughout history about it.

            Just two cents on it…..

          • #20134 Reply

            Robin Vander Wall

            This is really a fabulous idea. I’m close by to Duke, UNC, and NC State. Might be even better to try and team up with a sympathetic professor who could suggest the topic to an aspiring Masters or Doctoral candidate. Only other option I can think of would be a Craigslist ad. Do you have a suggestion about it?

          • #20510 Reply

            Scholarly endevour of historical times & merit

            Robin – A professor who is willing to listen and possibly buy in on the idea is a good idea. They would also have the potential to bring the topic to students in search of a paper or seek students who may be open to doing the paper, as long as they understood the topic at hand so they don’t deviate from it. A law school student may also be an area who might have interest given the current nature of the topic at hand of what is happening. Maybe a teaming arrangement between students would be possible.

            It could be looked at from historical, sociological and legal points of view of those who are of historical merit, but leave that up to you for the paper parameters. Knowing they could/would be printed in an academic journal is usually exciting because it is career enhancing. As long as people understand it is not a smear tactic because family members could be touchy about it, but holding current laws and standards to historical times is irrational to begin with.

    • #19702 Reply

      john schultz

      Also, Im assessed as level 1 here, not published on the arizona web page, but because I also register with Wisconsin I appear on their site, and because Wisconsin is linked to the NSOPWS, I appear there too. Not that it matters, because this ISNT about me..its about these horrible illegal laws and ALL OF US. SOME OF THE POSTERS HERE COULD DO THEMSELVES AND ALL OF US BETTER BY TRYING TO REMEMBER IT IS NOT EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF. IM SPEAKING TO YOU Ranger and Graphlr etc. Stop being divisive. It hurts me to read pleas for help and support with such negative and divisive undercurrents. CANT WIN LIKE THIS COMMRADS. AYE?

    • #19687 Reply

      Derek W Logue of

      The question here is if people are going to do anything besides complain here about it? There isn’t a REAL activist presence for much of the Midwestern US, OK included.

      • #19701 Reply

        john schultz

        Commrads, i live in arizona. my sex offense is from 1988, served to completion in 2010. lifetime registrant in WI. Ive been here in az for 7 years living quietly. Out of nowhere my life is threatened again. Indicted! HolyShit Indicted for failure to register, a class 4 felony, because there is one, one and only one, piece of paper where the street suffix is wrong. I accidentally put ST instead of DR. ALl my other info was correct, including my drivers license, dept of safety verifications, even concurrent wisconsin registration was all compliant and accurate. These Nazis are trying to give me 5 years plus lifetime probation because of a freakin TYPO on one form. God Grant Me Serenity.

        • #19823 Reply

          Sandy Rozek

          John, I tried to email you with some information that might be helpful, and the email was returned. You may email me directly at if you wish.

      • #19748 Reply

        Sandy Rozek

        Thank you, Derek. Yes, the E. D. of NARSOL’s Oklahoma affiliate organization has appointments to meet with each of the two legislators who wrote the legislation. They are open to hearing other sides of the issue and looking at the research, and she will go well prepared for the meetings.

        We encourage anyone in any state who would like to find out more about being an official NARSOL contact or advocate to contact us.

    • #20009 Reply

      john schultz

      Sandy, im terrified about using email, im probably not compliant with reporting eidentifyers. In any case, I cant access my email. It is years ago since I used it and my new devices are part of my stepfathers plan. I cant figure out how to synce my tablet to my old email. Stupid me. Anyway, that is my email. You could text me. My phone is 2624558709, or post it on your blog, which by the way is super helpful. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. Im a foot soldier from today onward. A poor schmuck but Ill help however Im anle. Sorry about the bogus email I provided, Im frozen with fear. And my lawyer says they got defense, strict liability. Im praying for a miracle. Thanks in advance for everything you guys do, Sincerely, john m. schultz

      • #20011 Reply

        Sandy Rozek

        We have some advocates in AZ who are active, the Bordons. Would you like me to give your phone number to them?

    • #20171 Reply

      john schultz

      Amen Trish. Amen to that. Snap out of whatever funky spell you are under and get the hell off your high horse. Sex offenses today are seen much like crimes against the Church once were. They are political offenses of the highest order. If you are unable to process this you are in good company because very few can connect the dots. These laws represent a fundamental rewrite of the social contract we all know as a free and just society. They are designed to incapacitate men, all men, in a virtual cage of fear, fear of anything remotely sexual. They promise a world of hapless, woebegone men, soulless , petrified. Imagine such a dystopian world, right out of H.G. Wells . It is the FEMINIST dogma writ large. Check out UM feminist law professor Kathlene McKennon for a primer on this. Dont judge until you do minimal due diligence.

Viewing 22 reply threads
Reply To: Reply #19494 in NO! We don’t need another sex offender law to fight
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">