Reply To: 23 yrs. ago: 5 yr. suspended sentence; today: still being punished

#21625
Avatar
Jeremy from Indiana

Since this comment is directly referencing me, I will respond, Maestro.

I never actually challenged that argument. I agree with you that it is unnecessary; however, that is not what most of us looking to reform the registry are fighting. My argument is that is another fight altogether and is better suited for another forum that includes all types of convicts that deal with those supervision measures.

As for this case, “J” should have never been convicted of a second crime of violating the registry just because he wasn’t at work or at home. I’m assuming his first 5 years of probation went fairly smoothly. Yes, he dealt with a lot of stuff he shouldn’t have dealt even if he was on legitimate supervision (which he was not). Probation and parole officers should have exact details and rules that they cannot alter to fit their own agenda. The Halloween BS they keep pushing is a registrant specific fight, so I do agree with that fight on here. Polygraphs are junk science and never hold up in actual court. I failed one in the brig and one after I was out on supervision. My PO was smart enough to know there was nothing she could do without a confession to wrongdoing though. I agree that the PO’s should not have full discretion on what they do and don’t allow. That’s a fight worth fighting, but it’s not registrant specific which is what the people in this organization are fighting.

It seems our debate is about debating different things. You constantly debate the wisdom of parole and probation in general while I only debate the registrant specific aspects such as questioning why a registrant is on supervision in the first place for violating an unconstitutional scheme. Fighting probation and parole in general is even more difficult than fighting the registry as long as it is part of a court ordered sentence. If it is not, or is the result of an unconstitutional law against registrants, or imposes additional restrictions on registrants; I’ll be fighting that right beside you.

My argument rests on the principle that if we demand too much and let the scope of our fight creep away, we will not win any fights. This is the same as those who condone fighting for too little, such as “only the worst of the worst should be registered”. I’m just asking that we focus on the fights specific to registrants… all registrants, but not the fights that fit all criminal classes, at least not here.