“The law is not always what is right”

By Rory Fleming . . . When large nonprofit organizations otherwise committed to making the American justice system less draconian hire people with violent criminal records, they send a strong message that justice-involved people change, and are capable of not only reentry but success.

But these same organizations do not have anyone on the sex offender registry on staff, regardless of qualifications or demonstrated rehabilitation.

This is unsurprising, yet tragic. When most people think of “sex offenders,” they imagine repulsive and heinous crimes against very young children. And in 2005, a Gallup poll suggested that Americans feared terrorists less than sex offenders.

In reality, the phrase “sex offender” describes any person convicted under a statute that requires sex offender registration, which lasts anywhere from 10 years to natural life, depending on the state and the offense.

The registry includes everyone from the mentally ill, remorseful flasher to the sexually-motivated killer, as well as the older party in a high school sweetheart relationship to a dangerous child rapist. There are almost one million Americans on sex offender registries, including people convicted for relatively minor sex crimes as children.

Read the full piece here at The Crime Report

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


Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    • #43694 Reply

      Registrants V terrorists.
      Are not registered persons considered domestic terrorists of sorts?
      Exactly the correlated interest inherent the governmental uses of databases. Exactly why the Surveillance Saints NEEDED the ruling in Alaska v. Doe. The collateral USE of a database for safety. A group to whom I am familiar, Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org) formed to combat and confront their idea that as Jusice Scalia put it, “I would think the United States government should use the DATABASE for whatever it pleases.”

      The men in grey clearly understood the political and financial proft potential of the device, but had much to overcome given the citizenry ‘s perception of the machines and their networks. (See U.S. V. AT&T) where privacy policymaking ruled the FCCs guidelines. Furthermore, Orwell and Machiavelli were required reading in high school and even some grade schools. Why 1984 will not be like 1984 a theme in an Apple commercial.

      The sex offender made the perfect scapegoat for the perceived need. The ruling flung open the doors to potential unfettered government USE of the device. Just wait and see how facial recognition plays out. Is the road to help paved with good intentions?


    • #44075 Reply

      “The law is not always what is right”…

      Clearly not, as the well documented SCOTUS cases throughout America’s short history shows (ie, Dred Scott, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Brown vs. Board of Ed – just to name a couple).

      SCOTUS has made the wrong decision many times, and later overturned their initial ruling. It will happen in our case too eventually. Smith vs Doe Alaska in 2003 was plain wrong and that SCOTUS decision and its failure to keep the government in check, led to many more unjust laws. It is very much like how their prior decisions led to the old Jim Crow laws.

      Based on history, Its somewhat predictable; when the SCOTUS sides with government in cases involving personal liberty, the government will alway legislate even more unjust laws – because government by its nature will always attempt to increase its power over its citizens…until, SCOTUS finally realizes the full practical impact of their prior decision.

      Its been 15 years since Smith vs. Doe. Cases around the country are beginning to emerge that offer hope. And many within the public and courts are beginning to question the effectiveness of the registry, its cost, and the impact upon liberty and lives. SCOTUS will ultamately right this wrong.

      • #45326 Reply
        Tim L

        Dude you got the makings of sound legal thought here. All three cases u mentioned above are legit fodder ( applicable) to SORNA. In Brown v board the court avoided ruling on the constitutional claim, and decided on other grounds. to paraphrase that court: ‘ The distinction intolerable.’ I’m wondering if you can utilize that phrase and apply it to our situation? Mill it around some in the old reason bucket. The people supporting brown won that case, but how’s their approach different from ours so far? IMHO that is 🔑 to what we must do.

Viewing 1 reply thread
Reply To: “The law is not always what is right”
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="">