No crime, charge, or conviction? No problem; you could still be punished

By Sandy . . . Everyone will not agree, but it is my belief that much sexual offense policy is driven by a sincere desire to protect children and reduce the risk of harm to them. The fact that the greatest part of such policy is ineffective, often actually harmful, and at times appears to be blatantly unconstitutional is very often a function of ignorance of the facts.

However, when the town of Foxborough, MA, developed its Policy Addressing Sexual Predatory Behavior/Actions Against Minors, some of the stakeholders were aware enough of some of the very questionable aspects of the proposed ordinance to question it.

And no wonder.

Quoting from the policy itself, its purpose is to be able to address behaviors “which do not rise to the level of actionable criminal conduct.” In other words, it will enable the Foxborough Board of Selectmen to exercise power and authority in place of law enforcement in dealing with situations where no one has broken any law.

And, depending on how they dealt with it, that might be fine. “Hey, Joe; Pastor Brown feels like you are stepping over the bounds with some of the things you’ve been saying to some of the kids in the youth group you help with that meets in the basement at city hall. You don’t want to upset the kids or ruin your own reputation. Maybe back off some; the pastor said he would be glad to talk with you about it, and he’s going to be keeping an eye out and so are we.”

But the town of Foxborough has something a little more forceful in mind.

“When there is a report of a specific incident, or a pattern of conduct, involving a particular person that does not rise to the level of actionable criminal conduct, but meets the standard of reasonable suspicion, the Town may act to prevent access by that person to potential child or adolescent victims” and may, if he is a town employee, “…remove that person from all children and adolescent programs and contacts that are within the Town of Foxborough’s jurisdiction and control.”

“Reasonable suspicion” is not always reasonable. And “prevent access”? The notice states that they would serve “suspicious” persons with a “notice of disinvite,” which would bar them from attending “…any event held on any Town property where there are activities involving minors.” The article cited above explains it this way: This “… legal document known as…a ‘letter of disinvite’ ” would bar suspicious persons from places such as “…schools, playgrounds and even conservation property.” (My understanding of conservation property is things like parks and wildlife or nature sites.)

So now Joe, instead of being told to cool it with the kids, is told that city hall is off-limits to him when the youth group is meeting or a school group is taking a tour, as well as all activities at any of the schools such as drama and musical performances, all sporting games and events, and the carnival where he takes his own kids — and, oh yeah, the zoo all the time and probably the hiking trails also.

And if Joe chooses not to be disinvited, “…the Town may on the advice of Counsel consider pursuing injunctive relief in the Superior Court.” In other words, they could seek a restraining order prohibiting his presence in any town owned properties specifically designed for the use of children and all town owned properties at any time that children or youth are present.

Additionally, if he is a city employee, this ordinance will allow the town of Foxborough not only to remove him from programs under its control but also to terminate his employment altogether.

And there could be more. The policy states that the remedies at their disposal “may include but not be limited to” the ones actually specified.

Several civil right groups in Massachusetts are extremely concerned about the potentials for abuse and violation of constitutional rights inherent in this ordinance. They sought the participation of ACSOL attorney Janice Belluci, who wrote a letter to the township officials expressing very legitimate concerns and asking for methods to be found to protect children without implementing procedures against those who have not been charged with any criminal activity that will surely and severely negatively impact their lives.

Encouraged by a concerned Foxborough resident, several attorneys and members of civil rights and advocacy groups, NARSOL among them, wrote a letter in support of Ms. Belluci’s letter and informing the authorities in Foxborough that the individuals and the organizations represented by the signatories of the letter were interested in working with the Child Sexual Abuse Awareness Committee to develop policy that aided in the protection and safety of children without the risk of damage to individuals who were, by every standard of our judicial system, innocent of a crime.

In a meeting of the Foxborough Child Sexual Awareness Committee the evening of March 14, the decision was made to remove the proposed policy from the agenda of the Foxborough Board of Selectmen March 19 meeting, where it had been scheduled, and to consider various alternatives and options before proceeding; the options range from forming a sub-committee to study the issue further to keeping the policy but making it even more punitive. One of the signers of the second letter, Susan, who is a Foxborough resident, spoke eloquently against the policy at the meeting. Other town residents who were present then spoke out against the policy, expressing many concerns.

Those on the registry are accustomed to being restricted as to where they may or may not go or be, and they are certainly accustomed to having their employment restricted or being terminated — or non-existent — due to their registry status.

With this Massachusetts town’s proposal of this ordinance, the sex offender witch-hunt, in seeking to extend restrictions and life-altering consequences to those who are not only not on the registry but have not even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one, has reached a new high — or, more appropriately, a new low.

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

Sandy Rozek

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 contains 27 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Avatar Saddles 5 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #53346 Reply
    Sandy Rozek
    Sandy Rozek
    Admin

    By Sandy . . . Everyone will not agree, but it is my belief that much sexual offense policy is driven by a sincere desire to protect children and redu
    [See the full post at: No crime, charge, or conviction? No problem; you could still be punished]

  • #53347 Reply
    Avatar
    Al Amantea

    When your only tool is a hammer (or a gun) everything begins to look like a nail…

  • #53352 Reply
    Charlie
    Charlie
    Moderator

    When I still had the privilege of working at the State University, (long story there), there was a term that was tossed around quite frequently: “othering” of individuals. Two other someone is to place an outside of the group of the person doing the othering. This was frequently seen back during those days when drinking fountains were segregated, lunch counters for segregated, Etc. You know the days I’m referring to.
    This was telling people who were other than the dominant group that they were unwelcome to participate in the day-to-day activities of the excluding group. In my day we would have called this bigotry, prejudice, racism, Etc.
    This politically correct term of being othered sounds more innocuous, and is because certain groups still want to discriminate but they don’t want to be accused of discrimination. In this way they could other the people that they don’t want to be inside their group and not feel like scum.
    This, in my opinion, is the example we’re seeing in your article. This particular municipality decided that they did not want to have to share life in the public square with certain people they found to be questionable. As egregious as the registry might be, it does have the force of law behind it and the presumption of a conviction before someone is placed on it. In theory someone has had their day in court.

    To create a municipal best practice and policy that allows selective other end of individual so they can’t play in your sandbox is different than the registry. There is a vigilante flavor to this. Who is to decide what is questionable Behavior? And where is the due process to weigh and balance one person’s opinion against fact and true risk? This is akin to having vigilante groups, malicious, and citizen committees that decide to regulate and rule over people do they personally find objectionable.
    Regardless of the motivation, namely the protection of children, I see it decided effort to assert power and control over other individuals. In my field of expertise, when someone applies power and control as a means to get what they want it is called domestic violence. Power and control is a violence against other persons.
    Haven’t been motivated to review the story of Adam Walsh based on some of the recent postings here in the form, it dawned on me rather quickly that the cause of young Adams death may have been at the hands of a stranger, but the catalyst of the whole event was parental neglect. We did not see a group of people othering or targeting parents who leave their children to play in a store while they go off to look for a lamps. To me if you want to stop child abuse or child endangerment, then you need to be aware of where your child is what your child is doing and who your child is with. While this won’t stop every incident, it is the first and foremost responsibility of community… to hold parents responsible for their actions! So, if this community wants to be so proactive to safeguard children, maybe they should create a policy that says when a child appears to be neglected by the parents whether there be no evidence, maybe they should talk to the parents about not being around their own children. This is hyperbole of course but you get the point. The focus is always on ‘other people’ and sell them on those who have the first line of opportunity to prevent harm. That would be the parents, the teachers, and those who stand in as parents for the children. Of course, many of those people are would-be perpetrators. But if parents are doing their job, we don’t need to worry about the strangers. because the parents will be aware and will be using their own intuition to decide what they feel is suspicious or not and they will make their own decision to remove their child from harm. If all parents did this, I think the harm would be greatly reduced.
    I’m ranting oh, I know, but as one who spends 8 hours a day counseling adults, the selfishness and narcissism I see in our current society is off the chart. Narcissism, otherwise known as cluster be in the diagnostic manual is at an all-time high since the 1990s. Could it be that it’s because we have taken the focus off of self and play song the others as responsible for all of our life’s difficulties? I don’t know. It mean this a pallet is like the one in this article are a fine example of narcissistic control over the community by a bunch of power-hungry politicians.

    • #53357 Reply
      Avatar
      wihz

      Even not being convicted the system is vindictive. Whether guilty or innocent they wrote the laws to convict you regardless. It’s the “you did something” argument.

      Think of the spaces between the threads in a quilt, or the numbers between 1 and 2 like 1.0001, 1.0002, and so on. The people making these laws and policies are literally trying to blanket their communities with enough “threads” of law to define an infinite number of possibilities. They won’t be happy until the number of buildings to house the volumes of text require an entire rezoning of land. On the moon of another planet. In another galaxy.

      And then they tell the average citizen “Don’t worry about it, you’re not a lawyer so let US take care of it all. Go back to your Netflix and green lawns. BTW, vote for me!”

      And let’s not even talk about “catch-alls”. So really this is what we have. We have too many AND too few laws. And an uneducated people that makes for the best jury any politician could ask for.

  • #53353 Reply
    Avatar
    Donna

    This doesn’t surprise me. The puritan ethic is still alive and well in Massachusetts.

  • #53356 Reply
    Avatar
    Timothy

    Great points lady,
    I do believe America is a spiraling nation headed toward ” nihilism. ”
    And why not, given we know the people embraced the forbidden use of the words ” was in prison…for a crime” in its law making in 94. Art1 sec10. It was SCOTUS itself who upheld the use a constitutional when in fact the minority expressed by the clearest proof the word’s intent. Mr Kennedy’s lament in Packingham, two decades tardy not withstanding direct scrutiny.
    There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about the words “was in prison….a crime” themselves Mr justice. Even the basic rights of speech, substantive protection, and council were all indeed impacted from the very beginning. After all which registrants could say “no” concerning email addresses of internet IDs or other information demanded by state police, dept. Public Saftey, Attorneys General, or any administrative agency cops? None! Each would without fail face felony indictment for not doing. How easy is to make a man a felon for not doing? Really easy. Who benefits from making felons of those not? Ask DNA exoneration experts. In our society which occurs more wrongful conviction of school shootings?

    No constitution is, precisely by the fact the people already know none, and I mean none! uphold it against the popular masses, nor corrupted leadership. I say SCOTUS irreparably condemned it’s own reputation and credibility and our nation along with it in 2003. Liberty has been replaced by data “need” as per our leadership’s desire to control the vote. Unfortunately, onerous iteration of the databases made it possible.

  • #53358 Reply
    Avatar
    David

    The sex offender registry and all the laws concerning sex offenders are ‘slow incarceration’ and are therefore punitive. When you are incarcerated for a crime you are confined from society by being incarcerated. Now, sex offenders are slowing being confined to certain geographical locations and areas by being restricted from those normal areas of life, interest, and social interaction just like you are in prison, and the ‘invisible barbed wire fence’ just keeps getting smaller and smaller until finally sex offenders will be on a sociological house arrest for fear of violating the law and going back to prison. The areas sex offenders can go to keeps getting smaller and smaller until you are in a prison without walls or a fence, but the punishment of confinement is still the same. Confinement is imprisonment. If I live near parks, trails, schools, conservation property, etc., I am now confined by those public areas since I cannot enter their property, but the public can, which means I am incarcerated from entering them.

    • #53469 Reply
      Charlie
      Charlie
      Moderator

      That term, “slow incarceration” really resonated in my. My stress level has never returned to neutral since the day I was ‘registered.’
      The active part of PTSD is the hyperarrousal that comes from the limbic system being on high alert (active stress and anxiety) which causes many issue beyond being triggered. Being in an adrenalized state most all the time takes a huge toll on the body. Stress results in so many secondary illnesses I won’t bother to begin to mention them. Many are diagnosable disabilities. But that’s not important since everyone on the registry deserves a slow incarceration leading to a slow execution by ones own systemic stress, right? ‘Not punishment’ is a lie of magnitude.

      • #53973 Reply
        Avatar
        Del

        My deepest sympathy for you Charlie, it’s so easy to be accused of any crime the way this system is runned I seen so many are in our institutions that’s falsley accused with my experience in the court system I don’t want anything to do with kids in any way to much damage has been done to families here in Oregon

  • #53359 Reply
    Avatar
    James Coghill

    “In other words, it will enable the Foxborough Board of Selectmen to exercise power and authority in place of law enforcement in dealing with situations where no one has broken any law.”

    If you haven’t broken the law nobody has a right to say anything about you. You can be as offensive as you can be in any way you want to as long as you don’t violate the law nobody can do anything about it. Just be sure you know the law. All of them. What we have here is a small group of people who want to control a much larger group. This is how one day you wake in Soviet Russia. There is a phrase lawyers use when referring to FAKE laws like this. They call it “the color of law”. It looks like law, but it isn’t law. If anyone tries to arrest someone under the color of law their actions instantly become unconstitutional because they are based on FAKE LAWS where there is no crime because it was not a law voted into creation by the elected officials of the public.

    What are the behaviors they don’t like anyway? I don’t see any offensive behaviors that the Foxborough Board of Selectmen want to prohibit listed here. Is this something to be determined in the future? Sorry that’s not constitutional government. Any government bears a responsibility to notify the public of any behaviors the government can take action against you for. How else are you to avoid these behaviors? In addition are the selectmen elected or are they volunteers? If they are not elected then they can’t create law and since they are local officials they have even further limitations based on the existing state law.

    “In other words, they could seek a restraining order prohibiting his presence in any town owned properties specifically designed for the use of children and all town owned properties at any time that children or youth are present.”

    Are they going to provide a child alert hotline for all the SO’s to use to find out if there is a child in city hall? This is just nuts as well as unconstitutional because it prohibits access to the courts and government that we all have an equal right to. What I want to know is who came up with this Communist way doing things? So THEY can be exposed before the public for what THEY really are.

  • #53360 Reply
    Avatar
    Daniel Druck

    What a unconstitutional policy isn’t enough that an offense is a life sentence there’s got to be a constant reminders. I was just let go of a job because of my status and my offense occurred 7 years ago. Management didn’t want to let me go but the company told them to, I’m fighting to get it back but I already know is a lost cause. What’s extremely unfair is my status had nothing to do with the job I was doing nor did I have access to anyone I was overnight. When does this kind of crap end

  • #53361 Reply
    Avatar
    Joe Evens

    This definitly could be subject to abuse, no question about it.

    • #53974 Reply
      Avatar
      Del

      If you think it’s bad where you at Oregon is one very messed up state they convict anyone under M-11 if you dare cross the street on a red blinking light

  • #53362 Reply
    Avatar
    Jim

    The USA government has proven time and time again that it truly is a SUPER POWER. This government WILL get its way with no regards to the rights or lives of any person or country that the USA decides no longer has any ” rights “. Rights are not rights if anything can take them away at a whim. The USA decides who has rights over the entire world. WOW! The USA has hundreds of thousands of troops all over the world making sure the other countries they are controlling are not ” violating their citizens rights” while the USA violates its own citizens rights every day. I used to be proud to be an American but now am embarrassed to be a citizen and stuck here.

  • #53382 Reply
    Avatar
    Donna

    Jim, no kidding, you are right! I too feel stuck here. This country makes a mockery of itself all the time in so many different ways. This town in Massachusetts is crazy. Take it from me, I lived in two small New England towns for 24 years and many of those folks there say how tolerant they are and how they are so accepting of people’s differences etc. etc. and they are the most intolerant and hateful of all!

  • #53375 Reply
    Avatar
    a man without a country

    How ironic that this is in Massachusetts!

    If readers of this have not watched the Winona Ryder and Daniel Day Lewis 1996 “The Crucible,” do so soon!

  • #53378 Reply
    Avatar
    Saddles

    Sandy I am impressed that you finely found the key. Even Charlie makes a lot of sense with the rasist issue from the 60’s were blacks and whites’were seprated or are we all men behaving badly or women behaving badly. Now I don’t like to think but I do like to use logic and principals.

    All these folks on here need to gripe about this issue as its man abusing their power. I wonder if government really understands we wrestle not with flesh and blood. Sure I would like to sue ever one of those that weld the sword and don’t even know how to use the sword correctly. Sure we could all go with wisdom and understanding or someone sterotyping someone as violent but when it comes right down to being ” Not everyone is going to agree it should be “To agree or not to agree, that is the question”. I wonder who chaperone who today in this battle to control others.

  • #53389 Reply
    Avatar
    Craig

    I have a slightly different take on this issue. I think that if this policy is allowed to go forward and is put into place, many more unregistered people are likely to see the slippery slope that now impacts every moment of my life as a registrant. If enough people are exposed to the extrajudicial punishments meted out daily by the various states on registered citizens, then perhaps it will open a few eyes to what are indisputably constitutional violations; violations that are costly to the government and advance no justifiable public policy. Just maybe someone will wake up and ask if these kinds of policies and laws are what the US stands for and if they are the best use of our time and limited resources. So to the people who will be trampled by the new Foxborough policy, I say “come on in, the water’s great!”

  • #53398 Reply
    Avatar
    WearethePeople

    Oh Sandy, I do agree it does have to do with the protection of children. The problem is that we have gone to far already. Freedom is no longer a thing. I have 11 grandchildren, one that is being punished by the Sex Offender Laws. The other 10 plus, the aunts and uncles, cousins and friends, all know who the person is who has been accused of the crime. My hope is that when they grow up they will be able to speak up. My son said to his daughter recently, we do not need a counselor we need a lawyer in the family.

  • #53399 Reply
    Avatar
    Odell Whitman

    How can anyone add to this, This plainly tells it just the way it is. To put it all in a nut shell , Everyone is always quick to find fault with others , But they can’t see clearly because of all the sin in their own lives. Just like God’s word says you need to take the board out of our own eye so you can see clearly enough to remove the speck from our brothers eye.

  • #53425 Reply
    Avatar
    Pamela Scott

    In Washington state, RCW 9A.42.110, it is illegal to leave your kid in the care of a sex offender. I cannot watch my teen grandkids because my daughter, who trusts me, will be committing a misdemeanor.

    You all can argue the merits, but my point, this is another case of punishing the blameless family of a registered person, knowing that the person is registered or required to register as a sex offender under the laws of this state, or a law or ordinance in another jurisdiction with similar requirements, because of a sex offense against a child.

    Once again, once I get off the registry, I would be required to register somewhere in the US. So there is no hope for redemption.

    Well, at this point. I am hopeful about the work that’s being done by agencies such as NARSOL.

  • #53426 Reply
    Avatar
    Dustin

    Slightly disagree with Sandy. While the early registry and associated laws and rules may very well have had protective intents, the later ones were enacted for politics and money. Few, if any, actually do anything protective and serve only to continually torture those whom this generation considers perfectly acceptable to discriminate against. I personally think in another generation or two, when nearly the entire country is either on or affected by this insanity, they’ll look back and wonder how we could have been so stupid.

    How is it that those who make such proposals can never see how it can be abused? How is it they never see the possibility of false claims? There’s a potential solution – have someone claim a council member was leering at their teenage son or daughter and subject them to their own idea. Betting the response would be almost comical and the proposal would either get shot down immediately or amended to not apply to them.

  • #53433 Reply
    Avatar
    Tony

    Swat at a Nat, swallow a camel. Can’t see the trees for the forest. What kind of person sets around looking for lions, tigers, and bears. Really! Wasting valuable resources to chase ghost. I am so glad even though we make laws against adultery, sodomy, and crimes against nature. No one seems to give a rip. 98% of society don’t give a rip about the sex offender registry. It is just dumb people who need some drama to gossip about that believe everyone on the SOR is trying to get some innocent child. This has to be the stupidest law we as a nation or people have ever put into law. How has the SOR ever saved any victim from being a victim? Duh! It hasn’t. It won’t, and it is stupid like the people who purport it is a safety net. I personally challenge anyone to prove it has saved anyone from being sexually assaulted… or for that matter being a victim of any crime. Stupid is as stupid does. It’s sort of like the lottery. We spend millions of dollars hoping we will win. The odds are astronomical that we will lose. but.. we still buy the lottery ticket hoping we will win. The people that support the SOR ( sex offender registry) are buying the lottery ticket. The catch is NOBODY WINS. Yet, they are still paying for it.
    That is the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help us God.

    • #53577 Reply
      Avatar
      allie

      I agree with Tony. For every person on the registry so people know who they are, there are probably three people out there that no one even suspects committing some sort of sex crime. How safe is the registry anyway? For all you know your next door neighbor is sexually abusing someone every day and hasn’t got caught, and you think he or she is the nicest person in the whole world.

  • #53496 Reply
    Avatar
    d

    No problem a policy like this won’t be abused at all right? The people under this kind of legislation would end up attacking each other and the whole area it serves would be a battleground. The constitution was created to stop just this kind of situation.

  • #53517 Reply
    Avatar
    AC

    “Everyone will not agree, but it is my belief that much sexual offense policy is driven by a sincere desire to protect children and reduce the risk of harm to them.”

    It really depends on who you speak to; and, more so, who writes the policies. I think some governmental officials have a genuine concern for the sexual safety of minors.

    But, more often then not, I intuitively feel that the majority of them simply exploit the ignorant fear and superstition of society to gain political favors; since many of them, if my “crystal ball” reads correctly, know that

    – Everyone develops biologically differently; and that the actual reality of human biology is, with law aside, some teenagers in fact do have the capability to give decent consent to sex with adults

    – Different nations have different Age-of-Consent laws; and none of them seem to agree with the definition of “child molestation”

    – Underage teenagers, in fact, are already ubiquitously having illegal sex with adults behind the law’s back and getting away with it at alarming rates.*** (Yes, America. They’re doing it; no matter how many laws in place you have against it. And, you know it, too. Your vigilante’s shout “CHILD MOLESTER!!!” by day; and hypocritically watch child pornography on the dark net at night. You know, the same as how homophobic self-hating repressed gay men did it back in the 90’s.)

    Politicians have done this for decades. They’re very much aware of their dishonest, disintegrous behaviour in order to achieve applause and commendation for “protecting children.” If they were honest about protecting children, they would try something more fair-minded and humane as Mexico’s “Estupro Laws”: it’s not statutory rape unless the 12-17-year-old teenager complains and states that he/she did not consent. Even if every law obviously produces people who would abuse it, it seems a whole lot more sound than blanketly and irresponsibly casting a be-all-end-all age where those above it can legally consent and those under it can’t.

    All that aside, it seems the dangerous child molesters who do in fact do harm (threatening children to go on camera, forcibly raping a teenager) are the ones who know how to get away with it. The ones who either
    1- aren’t dangerous or
    2 – aren’t attracted to children and haven’t committed a legal crime
    are the ones who caught by police and told that it is their (the police’s) job to protect children from “scumbags” like them. You have to wonder what America’s priorities are. Then again, I think I’m merely preaching to the gospel’s bass section.

    ***How do I know this? Well, I sure as hell wasn’t ever a teenager years ago who fancied certain individuals who were adults…
    (not that I knew it was law during that age)

  • #53574 Reply
    Avatar
    Dan Harvey

    I find it fascinating, we watch Hollywood movies and say “That can’t happen”. As a kid I watched the wonderous impossibilities of Star Trek with space travel and phones with no wires attached to them. Hmmm.
    Then you watch a crazy sci-fi movie like “Minority Report” where pre-crime police run rampant over the rights of the general public, we snicker and say “That’ll never happen” right?!?!

  • #53656 Reply
    Avatar
    Saddles

    Sandy a lot of peoples rights are being eroded away and this sex run/truth is just a scam Is a lot of this just the start. Man has always wanted to challenge man in some means or form. Call it survival of the fittest. Sure there is nothing wrong with law enforcment if its done right, but this sex ordeal is out of balance in many ways. I don’t even see how government can hold a straight face. Protecting is good and star trek is fantasy.

    Doesn’t matter if your protecting teenagers or children as the say. I’m sure they don’t even know the kid they are protecting in many cases with this fake type of: Hi I’m fifteen years old do you want to come over to my house and get naughty with me. I don’t care my mother is not at home and we can have the whole house to ourselvres. What respectable mother would leave their child home alone even if the child was say 12 yrs. old. I wonder who they are really serving for this public safety.

    Sounds like someone’s doing a cannon ball run on one when they are the ones are more responsible than the other one they are trying to snare or entrap. Sure the police will wiggle there way around it and say you made a choice. I can just see right now the look on that detective that set me up when he said to me… Well you made a choice and I said that night I made a decision. If one really listens something is rotten in Denmark

  • #54128 Reply
    Avatar
    Ernest Tucker

    I just had my first visit from my po. We spoke for a while and we talked about my crime. We spoke of motivation for what I did. He got upset when I mentioned the inaccurate hype that is put out by the news media each time someone is arrested for child porn. The way it is presented a man is convinced before he even gets to the court.
    I didn’t say this, but what chance does a person stand with the mkedia playing on the fears of the people by sounding alarms and inciting panic in the population?
    But back to the po. He made it a point to make sure that I knew the according to him, I was thinking all wrong. This whole sotp treatment program is a study in mind control and behavioral modification. I trained horses for many years. They use the same technique here. They apply pressure until you give to the pressure. Then they go on to the next level. It is all about intimidation. There may be some that are in need of help , but I know for a fact that there are innocent people that are having to endure this torture. You can’t declare your innocence without being called a liar because the court never sent an innocent person to prison. I was told that very thing today. Unfortunately, this is the thought process of the majority of the people in this country. I am now alone without family, friends, church, or even a reason to continue living except for my fear of failing and causing more pain than I already have to deal with as a crippled old man. May God bless each and every one of you. Keep up the fight.

Reply To: No crime, charge, or conviction? No problem; you could still be punished
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *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.
  • *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 links to other websites
  • *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> <em> <strong> <del datetime=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">

Cancel
Printer Friendly Version Printer Friendly Version