- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 3 days, 8 hours ago by Derek.
January 28, 2020 at 7:32 am #67510
Originally published in Criminal Legal News By Sandy . . . Twenty years ago, at age 23, William committed a serious sexual crime for which he spent th
[See the full post at: Which makes us safer? Residency restrictions or enhanced rehabilitation for former sexual offenders?]
January 28, 2020 at 12:14 pm #67520
I simply don’t understand residensity restrictions at all. SO’s can drive, take a bus or even walk if they have to. SO’s dont need to ‘live in a neghhood’ if they are hell bent on doing something. Let them live in the neighborhood and simply control your kids.
January 29, 2020 at 9:43 am #67530
Preventing justice vs perverting justice one wonders what is worse. Yes, fighting for the rights of people are good or do we all have the right answers of every situation that comes down the pike. i,e, well lets give him or her probation or lets make an example for him or she’s a bit of a hot pants and not productive to society so we’ll lock her up teach her a lesson. So were does truth and understanding come in.
Yes fightening all the same who is taking advantage or who? Rights are good, even for those wrongfully convicted in this sex registry ordeal. Much of this is a bit to much in may instances certain circumstances. Rules of wisdom or rules of understanding get more complex today in this sex registry issue. One wonders is its men and women behaving badly or government behaving badly.
Seems like everything is connected in this moral for truth and justice in a lot of this vainity way and this vision of true justice. Sure life can be a slippery slope or someone walking by a tightrope but were is the honor in much of this or is one all out to make a reputation for oneself in this maze of moral for true justice. One wonders who calls the kettle black or dictates measures of confinement. Who’ is getting who’s goat with much of this jumbuled up justice and yes one can go with biblical understanding or moral understand that can bring strong delusion on all in this creating or challanging registry. So who sets up people or who today grooms one into all much of this debauchery. Where is the true principal behind all this safety or responsible factor as government calls it. Who is abusing with this slippery slope.
January 29, 2020 at 9:44 am #67540
Tim in WI
These facts describe exactly how wrong the Majority was in Alaska V Doe.
The majority decided to play the “congressional deference” ignorance card when faced with statute that began, ” a person who was in prison, on probation, parole, aftercare supervision……a sex crime. ”
Can anyone imagine a case when Congress would NOT emphasize ” public safety” when opting for utilizing the words ” was\is incarcerated” in statute?
IMO the founders understood that could never be the case and thus opted for the words: Congress shall pass NO LAW. Meaning civil or criminal laws ex post are patently destructive and harmful to government’s good faith credibility toward the people. It is a simple regulatory function of the clause Art. sec10, applies specifically to Congress and no other branch.
The potential usefulness of the database infrastructure however was too advantageous politically to be ignored and unfettered use was needed to fully capitalize.
January 29, 2020 at 5:50 pm #67589
“‘The first step is to conduct research to determine if residence restrictions are actually doing what the legislative goal was,’ she said. ‘And that is to protect children.“
Ok, so I shall reiterate what I’ve been saying for a long time…
What was it like back in the 1960’s, the 1970’s and the 1980’s long before there was a Megan’s Law and a Jessica’s Law? Were there any residency restrictions back then for people with sex crimes? And if not, was there a spike in sex crimes when those individuals got out of prison and lived wherever they wanted?
If no, then where in the heck did these restriction ideas come from other than fear mongering?
There was a time with no registry and no residency restrictions. So why do people act as if sex crimes STARTED with Jessica Lundsford and Megan Kenka?
Brining up the way things were PRIOR to these laws would be a great thing to add to legal arguments against these laws/ordinances.
January 29, 2020 at 5:53 pm #67590
You’re asking parents to be parents? How dare you! We NEED big brother to babysit for us and teach us how to be parents. 1984!!! Hello, McFly!
January 30, 2020 at 6:30 am #67638
I continue to state:. NARSOL is not against the Registry Scheme at all. All you ever report on are the “rules” of the registry.
In this case particularly. Residency restrictions…. There is no evidence, YES you are correct.
Why are you not arguing against the Registry Scheme itself because there is absolutely ZERO evidence that such a scheme makes anyone safer & it absolutely does not make children any safer either. They are political arguments only. Our own govnt resources have published these fundings for decades.
Do you need help compiling this info or something? I can send it to you.
Even the ACLU knows this and is starting to do something about it, starting in Michigan.
How about we hear that NARSOL is connecting with the ACLU of each state to bring class action suite against each state, and then the Fed Govnt?
Your report on residency restrictions was a waist of everyones time.
January 30, 2020 at 6:34 am #67643
You have a lot of misinformed assumptions in this comment, Phil. I suggest you visit a few of the tabs on the top menu to learn what NARSOL is about.
January 30, 2020 at 10:17 pm #67712
Phil, since you are not informed correctly about NARSOL’s stand on the registry in general, these might help:
In the states where the ACLU is willing to work with NARSOL’s affiliates and contacts, it happens. In the states where they are not willing, it doesn’t.
And if you feel that pieces about residency restrictions are a waste of time, then you would probably be happier not reading them.
January 31, 2020 at 11:34 am #67734
Tim in WI
No reasonable persons may logically dispute a people’s right to have a database of known convicted persons. However, reasonable basis exists to dispute the intent of the plain indenture to the machines insatiable maintenance! If no liberty at stake, who would complain?J.P. Stevens.
The government registry use goes waaaaaaay beyond mere public notice!
When the regime severely outpaces stated legislative intent there is serious room for argument the ulterior motive is to revisit passed crimes, not prevent future attacks.- DH Souter
With registration came tracking of the individual by states and federal agents with eyes and expectations wrought via electronic infrastructure. Underlying the regime’s conception was first the widespread collection of citizens data.
This is what the party elites are up to, solely for the purposes of political security. NARSOL would have a much larger footprint on social media sites if registered persons we’re permitted to participate in peaceful assembly therein and by.
In fact a man used FB content to clear his name by exposing a wrongful accusation and subsequent conviction for rape. Former prosecutors pushed FB etc. to exclude individuals listed on sex registries. Outright complete bans upon sex offender use has been passed into law by the people. Their intent required the clearest proof of unconstitutionally to overturn. The higher courts have found it to be as ex post so-called punitive, MI, CO, NC, PA yet the path of repeal is blocked.
Hmmmm what could it be? The loss of individual tracking privileges perhaps, and all wrought by the regulatory regime made ” civil. ”
Blatant violation of a single person is evil enough, but blatant attack upon the masses by a deregulated electronic government another faaar more onerous evil.
February 2, 2020 at 6:18 am #67787
Phil excuse me for butting in but yes their are restrictions and I even hate to say that. Sure one can all be upset but Sandy is right and so is Brenda Jones, Janice even Robin and a whole host of advocates. Maybe I’m wrong for even coming on here at times but I’m here to learn and be informed in many ways also. I’m sure we are not in or on this sex registry for our health.
Even Janice which I haven’t text to her in years would like me to to give her a call but she is a busy lady and so far I can’t honestly complain. I even asked these both ladies about this plight and their take and both were understanding and appauled at a lot of this registry ordeal. I live right across the street from kids and I live by myself. Housing is a somewhat big disadvantage but so is many more issues with this sex registry. Phil everything comes out in the wash or do law enforcement still do drip dry, dry cleaning or do they get too much starch in their collars.
Narsol is for rational laws and yes we all should understand that a lot of these sex law’s tend to hold people back from living space. Isn’t liberty and living peaceful a good reason why NARSOL and others are in all this or is being Rational some behavior disfunction.
Phil understand NARSOL is for you and me and everybody else that wants to see much of these laws in a Rational view or should we all get irrational about the quality of food they serve today or the suffering some go thru, or the sleepless nights we all can go thru. Maybe I don’t make any sense but you need to apologize up front about that commet.
Its almost what I told my PO the first day I met him “It is what it is until it is what it isn’t” or maybe I should of used the word ain’t, and he looked at me and said what’s that suppose to mean but me and my Po are on good terms or should one turn one’s backs on one another in all this discord.
Being reasonable is being reasonable or who shows love in much of this punishment in many of these ordeals. So being irrational is not good.
February 9, 2020 at 10:38 am #68035
I just wanted to say that in the “situation with Gavin,” it may not be what it appears to be. Iowa technically doesn’t have a exclusion zone for tier one and tier two offenders. Tier 3 offenders still abide by the 2000 foot rule but there’s not very many of those compared to the other 2. Iowa does have “loiter laws” that prohibit sex offenders from staying in one place 300 feet from any school, park or library. Basically, you can’t live across the street from a school but you could live down the street from it as long as you’re at least 300 feet away from the schools property line. If “Gavin” was a tier 3 or he moved in some place 200 feet from a school, park, library, that’s pretty much about the only thing he could get flack for unless his parole officer (if he had one) had any conditions where Gavin was required to live. Aside from having a questionably unconstitutional special sentence law they apply to everyone regardless of the nature of their offence, Iowa really ain’t that bad of a place to live as a sex offender. I personally enjoy certain liberty’s here that other states by law have stripped away from it’s sex offenders.
February 9, 2020 at 10:38 am #68037
Hello, well the whole thing (registry) is based on a lie, ive said many times about federal government did a study on recidivism in 1994 and results show 9% and every study by the government since shows below 5% & i tell people if you dont believe me go on the Doj & Smart.gov website the studies from 1994 are right there for everyone to see and get a copy of but it dont seem like anyone believes me, so i i took a snapshot of it which shows web address plus each front page says it comes from the Doj & Smart.gov & the front page states they did the study in 1994 and it states recidivism was below 5%, now from what i understand the Federal government has committed fraud because they knew the recidivism rate below 5% yet allowed Megans law to be enacted and not correcting the Supreme Court & allowing them and everyone else to believe recidivism is ” High & Frieghtening” and “80% recidivism” knowing the truth, i believe if as many people as possible get a copy and pass it onto lawmakers and media a hit them with the truth that Federal Government proved it in 1994 that So’s have the second lowest recidivism rate. I have two snapshots plus both studies but i dont think im allowed to put the snapshots on rsol, if i can i will.
February 9, 2020 at 10:38 am #68039
Here’s something to knaw on : Why were lawmakers so quick to pass Jessica’s law, demonizing people without distinction on the urging of a man who had deleted images of child pornography in his own computer the day his daughter went missing in Homasse, Florida in 2005? Why wasn’t John Lunsford charged? Why wasn’t his 18-year-old son required to register as a sex offender several years later when he pleaded guilty to sexual contact with a minor? Why, finally, the double standards?
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think that possession of pornographic images on a computer makes a person a sex offender or a danger to society. If Mark Lunsford had such images in his possession the day his daughter was kidnapped, raped and murdered that should not make Lunsford a criminal.
But the prisons are filled with men who did no more than Jessica’s father did. Why are those men in prison? Why are they required to register as sex offenders on release and to be forced into substandard housing, labelled a public health menace and then prosecuted for technical violations of the law?
February 25, 2020 at 10:57 am #68635
I like what Phil is saying why are we not , filing suites and joining with aclu and going federal and state levels.?