Reform SO Laws and Offender Registry

Francie Baldino
Francie Baldino 6 Comments
432 Signatures Goal: 500





 IF SO, PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING AND SIGN THE PETITION BELOW TO GET THESE LAWS REFORMED.... ***(Note:You do not need to donate to this website to sign the petition) The current sex offender law is so vague and misleading, it is so extremely destructive to so many lives that should not be touched by this. It needs to be revisited and reformed so it only applies to those who are violent or threat to society. As it stands right now, you could be prosecuted as a sex offender and forced to register as one if you are: 1)an 18 yr. old individual and have had consensual sex with your underage girlfriend/boyfriend,(16 or under) regardless of how long you have been together or being 100% consensual. Did you know each sexual act counts as one criminal sexual charge, B) wrongly accused by someone who is trying to get even, C) lied to by a consensual sexual partner about their age D)decided to relieve yourself outside, urinating in public E)you were joking around with some friends and mooned one of them ....and there are more stories that are unjustifiable, being forced onto the registry and charged as a sex offender.... Legislators have reformed some of the laws as of July 1st so that anyone charged in a consensual "Romeo & Juliet" relationship can be removed from the registry. However, many laws changed the Tier Levels of SO's forcing them to change their registration period from 25 years to life.  Individuals charged with this so-called crime, with no other convictions, should be omitted from the list altogether.  In this horrible economic state we are in, it is such a waste of the states and taxpayers money as well as vital resources to put these non-violent, so called sex offenders behind bars but most importantly, it is a set up for failure for so many peoples futures by the stigma they are labeled with, it ruins their futures and lifes by pooling them into a group charged with truely serious crimes. The registry is so overblown, most believe that everyone on that registry are sick individuals, not knowing that it could be as simple as what I have listed. There are more than 44,000 sex offenders listed in Michigan alone.


If anything, we need to reform the law to keep these individuals off the registry. What the registry and law was originally intended has back-fired by convicting and punishing so many people that shouldn't be and now that the registry is so overblown, it is harder for authorities to keep track of those who really need to be watched and feared. It can't do what it is intended to do if we keep filling it up with people that don't belong on it. How sad to disregard a persons life like that. If you are a sex offender on the registry, you are restricted from where you can live (can't be close to parks, schools) where you can work, where and who you can visit. In other words, if an offender has family and has little nieces and nephews, he/she cannot be near them, can't take part in Halloween, can't do anything at all that involves children. Even a mother or father that is a SO, cannot attend their own childrens functions, graduation, plays, is just ridiculous! This needs to change. Please join my fight to get legislature to further change this law and get our politicians involved in moving this change forward. If you sign this petition, you will be agreeing that this law needs to be reformed and we need to do it soon, before average everyday people completely fill up the sex offender registry and we will not know who is a threat to society and who isn't. My son is a prime example, he has served over 6 years for having sex with his underage girlfriend of 2 years,.....he has struggled even after petitioning to be removed from the registry and being granted the removal. He still deals with sex offender issues everyday. Please help me in my quest! Thank you in advance for signing, it means so much not only to me, but many, many others!

Sincerely, Francie- Michigan RSOL

Sponsor This website and it's supporters cover the United States and has contact individuals for every state. Please go to this website learn of peoples stories of how this law has continuously disrupted and destroyed their lives and futures as well as a great resource for information on different state laws & also information on what you can do to help. You will be amazed.


Visit this website for an excellent article on Americas unjust sex laws from


The Economist Magazine....excellent story!!


Channel 4 news story on sex offenders, Karen Drew interviewed me about my personal situation & input.

  • Anonymous
    Oct 05, 2017
    Oct 05, 2017

    Since 1994, when Congress first ordered states to create sex offender registries, the laws in the United States about sex crimes have steadily ratcheted up. We now have what experts say is the most draconian regime in the world, with over 800,000 listed persons.

    Legislators have repeatedly expanded the definition of a sex offender, extended the periods of time for which offenders must register, and toughened the consequences of registration. In addition, they have done all this even though these laws rest on flawed stereotypes, not solid evidence.
    Now, some parts of government—including law enforcement—are starting to urge change. A report by the Council of State Governments, a nonpartisan organization funded in part by the states, noted, “Common myths about sex offenders continue to influence laws.” The report concluded, “There is little empirical proof that sex offender registries and notification make communities safer.” The California Sex Offender Management Board, which includes a district attorney, police officers, and corrections officials, went even further, earlier this year, saying, “The registry has, in some ways, become counterproductive to improving public safety.” The board called for “overhauling” the system to treat varying groups of sex offenders differently, based on their risks of re-offending. “When everyone is viewed as posing a significant risk, the ability for law enforcement and the community to differentiate between who is truly high risk and more likely to re-offend becomes impossible,” the board said.
    We want to vilify these people, because they’re easy to hate,” Patty Wetterling, whose son Jacob was kidnapped at age 11 and remains missing nearly 25 years later, told me in an interview last month. Media coverage still fuels this impulse. “High-profile cases involving sex offenders continue to dominate the news” and “understandably shape the public perception of sex offenders,” according to the Council of State Governments report. The result, the report concluded, is that “lawmakers face an arduous task” if they try to push smarter, not tougher, policies. Another report from the Center for Sex Offender Management, a research group funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, also concluded that public perceptions “pose a significant challenge.”
    It is important to remember that failing to categorize offenders based on risk has consequences. When everyone is treated the same say, the system is inevitably overburdened—and dangerous offenders slip through the cracks. Jaycee Dugard, for example, was kidnapped at age 11 and held captive by a registered sex offender for 18 years in the face of multiple lapses in California’s registration system. “The police were so exhausted that really all they could do was take a look in the doorway when this woman was held captive since she was 11 in the backyard,” Nicole Pittman, an expert at the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, told me. California ultimately paid Dugard and her family $20 million to settle claims that state authorities had failed to adequately supervise her kidnapper
    Abandoning the one-size-fits-all approach to offenders is just a first step toward broader reform. The Center for Sex Offender Management, the research group funded by the Department of Justice, has identified 20 best practices, including better treatment programs, more housing options upon release from prison, and distinct strategies for dealing with juvenile offenders. These ideas are actually grounded in science. The report cited research showing that treatment “is associated with reduced recidivism among sex offenders,” which is why ensuring its ability is vital to improving public safety. Similarly, the research demonstrated that “stabilization in the community contributes to decreases in re-offense rates.” Yet laws restricting where sex offenders can live have swept the nation in recent years, leaving homeless offenders to live under bridges. Finally, treating juvenile offenders the same as adults “has not been found to increase public safety, and it comes with potential unintended consequences, such as social and peer rejection, disruption in the development of a healthy identity, and other barriers to adjustment and stability.”
    Beyond the policy changes, however, Wetterling also sees a need for something else, something more fundamental. “These are human beings who made a mistake. If we want them to succeed, we’re going to need to build a place for integrating them into our culture,” she told me. “Right now, you couldn’t walk into a church or community meeting and say, ‘I was a sex offender, but I’ve gone through treatment. I now have this lovely family, and I am so grateful to be a part of this community.’ There is no place for success stories. Nobody believes them.”
    “Who ends up on the registry or not is based on conviction. It is not based on risk,” says Laurie Rose Kepros, who is with the State Public Defender’s Office in Colorado.
    The Public Defender’s Office is spearheading the effort to overhaul the sex offender registry. It says research shows less than five percent of sex offenders re-offend.
    What is “the” recidivism rate?

    Proponents of ever-increasing stringency and monitoring of former offenders claim that most studies track recidivism only for three years and that with each year, the rate increases. However, while it is true that recidivism in general increases a little for the group as a whole each year of a study, for every individual in the study, and actually for individuals everywhere, the risk or chance of re-offending goes down every year they remain in the community offense-free. (2) (3) (4)
    When you add to this the fact that the vast majority of those who are committing sexual offenses right now and will in the future are those not on a sex offender registry, and this is even more true in cases of child sexual abuse, the actual risk to any given child from a registered individual is minuscule.
    No one wants to take any risk or chance, no matter how small, with the safety of his children, but the precautions taken must be in proportion to the actual risk of harm. You do not totally ostracize and severely damage the lives of over 800,000 registrants and their families and their children based on such a small risk. You teach your children the common-sense precautions that our parents taught us and that you are probably already teaching them, and you keep up with where they are and who they are with–and that will also help, along with some additional instruction, against the much greater risk of sexual harm from those not on a registry.
    The reason I said all that is because we have a firm opinion as to just where we should start changing people’s minds. In addition, it is a small point. Spell out a clear definition to the terms “Recidivism” and “Re-Offense”. Society does not understand that these terms are being merged and it skews the statistics. When the fanatics and Law Enforcement use the term “Recidivism” they are including ALL CRIMES an SO commits after release to include shoplifting so he can eat that week! That is NOT the same in any way as “Re-Offending” by committing a new sex crime!

    What is a crime?
    It is interesting to note what a crime is
    Crimes: The heinous act to destroy humanity, self-respect and anything, which can be harmful to masses, is called as crime. 800,000 persons is a mass group of people, inlclude their families it grows even more, and these laws are harmful.

    Some would ask, “What are the worst crimes”?
    Murder would have to be probably the worst.
    Drug Trafficking
    Animal Abuse
    Child Abuse
    Domestic Abuse
    Trafficking of Humans
    Armed Robbery
    Animal Fighting
    Selling of human organs
    Trading of Wildlife (poaching)
    These are what are considered terrible crimes, but owhat are violent crimes?
    A violent crime or crime of violence is a crime in which an offender r perpetrator uses or threatens to use force upon a victim. This entails both crimes in which the violent act is the objective, such as murder or rape, as well as crimes in which violence is the means to an end. Violent crimes may, or may not, be committed with weapons. Depending on the jurisdiction, violent crimes may vary from homicide to harassment. Typically, violent criminals includes aircraft hijackers, bank robbers, muggers, burglars, terrorists, carjackers, kidnappers, active shooters, gangsters, drug cartels, and others.
    Depending on the country you are from is what determines the most violent, and what you term as violent.
    However, I think most of us can agree that
    Murder (including non-negligent homicide)
    Forcible Rape
    Aggravated Assault
    Abuse of Domestic Partner, Child, or animal resulting in death
    Are probably the worst.
    So what should be a predatory crime that results in lifetime listing?
    Crimes that could result in lifetime registration:
    Includes aircraft hijackers, bank robbers, terrorists, rapists, torturers, active shooters, murderers, gangsters to include street gangs as well as others, drug cartels, child molestation.

    Are probably the worst and most violent
    There has been talk for many years of reforming the Sex Offender Laws, some people/groups that support this are
    California Law Enforcement, the list has grown to over 100,000 in that state making it useless as a tool. It is impossible to properly maintain.
    Patty Wetterling, the mother of Jacob Wetterling, who has stated, “that we have gone too far”, the “Sex Offender List is not what it was intended to be”, it has “included persons who are not a danger”.
    More and more law enforcement, district attorney's, public defenders, prison gaurds, and everyday persons.
    In our zeal to protect children and get tough on crime, we have allowed our criminal justice system to run amok — expanding categories and exacting punishments that upon closer inspection few of us would really condone.

    Study after study has shown that our sex offender registries are utterly ineffective at reducing sexual violence, and that public notification about sex offenders may actually increase recidivism by making reintegration into society nearly impossible.
    While it is entirely reasonable that we try to guard against predatory sexual behavior, it is unreasonable to allow the sex offender registry — originally designed as a private investigative tool for law enforcement — to spiral out of control as it has.

    Rather than narrowly target a very few dangerous offenders and allow them to be monitored by law enforcement, we have morphed our registry into a massive instrument of public censure and marginalization, while utterly failing to advance the purpose for which it was created. The social science is unequivocal: the registry does not make us safer, or reduce sexual violence. What it does is ruin hundreds of thousands of lives — the lives of people like Adrian and Shawna — in a vain attempt to put a human face on our fears.

    One of many registrants;

    Unable to find housing that complied with a Miami ordinance that prevents registrants from living within 2,500 feet of any public or private school, daycare center or playground, Adrian was forced into homelessness. He slept in a car parked in a lot — one of the few places sex offenders is actually allowed to reside. His college career was over, as was any hope he ever harbored of having a productive life.

    Tulsa, Oklahoma, implemented residency restrictions in 2006. Ten years later, Tulsa police sergeant Adams said, “2006 just turned our world upside down; prior to that we had 15 to 20 (failure to register) violations a year. Since that we have hundreds of violations a year.”
    The worlds youngest sex offender was Katelyn Overkamp of Michigan. She was put on at 8 yrs of age.

    Throughout the United States, children as young as nine years old who are adjudicated delinquent may be subject to sex offender registration laws. For example, in Delaware in 2011, there were approximately 639 children on the sex offender registry, 55 of whom were under the age of 12.

    Research data and anecdotal reports are consistent in failing to find efficacy in the implementation of residency restrictions for those who are registered. In Wherefore Art Thou? Transient Sex Offenders and Residence Restrictions, researcher Jill Levenson writes, “Significantly higher proportions of transient sex offenders were found in counties with a larger number of local-level restrictions….”

    “Research has demonstrated that residence restrictions do not decrease and are not a deterrent for sexual recidivism. In addition, research has shown no significant decreases in sex crime rates following the implementation of residence restrictions,” writes the SMART Office on their website. The DOJ’s Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking Office is authorized under the Adam Walsh Act.

    Maine, writes as part of its Criminal Justice & Public Safety Committee Study of Sex Offender Registration Laws (Page 19), “Over the years, the Legislature has heard and worked a number of bills dealing with residency restrictions. Hearing testimony on these bills and educating ourselves about other states’ experiences with residency restrictions, the committee finds, and the research supports, that such restrictions do not increase public safety.”
    And New Mexico’s own SOMB writes, “The Board has concluded that current research does not support imposing residency restrictions on sex offenders in New Mexico… the Board has concluded that imposing residency restrictions may ultimately reduce public safety.”

    In the recent moral panic over kids sending around naked pictures, 20 states passed anti-sexting laws. Thirty states require registration for consensual sex between teenagers; half a dozen require registration for offenses related to prostitution and a dozen more for urinating in public. Looking at illicit pictures regularly lands people on the registry, and perhaps most curiously, the Supreme Court has held that just drawing pictures of children engaged in sexual acts can be grounds for criminal prosecution.

    The panoply of laws that govern the lives of individuals convicted of sex crimes after they have served their sentences is overwhelming. As this web of civil regulation has “grown into a Byzantine code governing in minute details” how these people must live day-to-day, questions about these laws’ legitimacy and constitutionality are being litigated around the country. Several courts have struck down onerous and overbroad
    Registration requirements that apply to offenders living in the community.

    Tell a lie, make it simple, and tell repeatedly, people will believe it. This is a similar statement made by Adolph Hitler.

    A New York Times “op-doc” posted this week zeroes in on a persistent myth that has helped inspire and sustain harsh policies aimed at sex offenders: the idea that their recidivism rate is “frightening and high,” as Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy put it in a pair of cases decided a decade and a half ago. David Feige, a former public defender who directed Untouchable, a 2016 documentary about sex offenders, shows how an uncorroborated assertion in a 1986 Psychology Today article continues to influence the politicians who pass laws and the judges who uphold them.
    In McKune v. Lile, a 2002 decision that upheld a mandatory prison therapy program for sex offenders, Kennedy said “the rate of recidivism of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%,” a number he called “frightening and high.” He repeated that claim the following year in Smith v. Doe, which upheld retroactive application of Alaska’s registration requirements for sex offenders. As of 2015, according to a review published in Constitutional Commentary, Kennedy’s phrase had been echoed in 91 judicial opinions and the briefs filed in 101 cases.
    Yet there was never any evidence to support Kennedy’s assertion, and research conducted during the same period when it was proliferating indicates that it is not even remotely true.
    Tell a lie make it simply and tell repeatedly, people will believe it. This is a similar statement made by Adolph Hitler.

    As Feige notes in a commentary that accompanies his video, “Nearly every study—including those by states as diverse as Alaska, Nebraska, Maine, New York and California as well as an extremely broad one by the federal government that followed every offender released in the United States for three years—has put the three-year recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders in the low single digit. With the bulk of the results clustering around 3.5 percent.” Studies covering longer periods find higher recidivism rates, but still nothing like 80 percent, even for high-risk offenders.
    The authors of the Constitutional Commentary article, Ira Ellman and Tara Ellman, found that the original source of the 80-percent figure—which Kennedy apparently got from Solicitor General Ted Olson, who cited a 1988 Justice Department handbook—was a 1986 Psychology Today article by Robert Longo, a counselor who ran a treatment program at an Oregon prison, and Ronald Wall, a therapist who worked for him. “Most untreated sex offenders released from prison go on to commit more offenses,” they wrote, explaining the value of the work from which they earned their livelihoods. “Indeed, as many as 80% do.” As Ellman and Ellman pointed out, it was “a bare assertion” with “no supporting reference.”
    Longo himself repudiated the estimate in a March 2016 interview with Joshua Vaughn, a reporter at the Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and Sentinel, saying it does not accurately reflect recent research and should not be used as a basis for public policy. In Feige’s video, Longo says it is “absolutely incorrect” to suggest that anything like 80 percent of sex offenders commit new crimes after serving their sentences. That number, he says, was the high end of the range indicated by research at the time, although he once again fails to cite any actual studies. This was a myth, not true.

    This month the Supreme Court will have a rare opportunity to correct a flawed doctrine that for the past two decades has relied on junk social science to justify punishing more than 800,000 Americans. Two cases that the court could review concern people on the sex offender registry and the kinds of government control that can constitutionally be imposed upon them.
    In Snyder v. Doe, the court could consider whether Michigan’s broad scheme of regulating sex offenders constitutes “punishment.” The other case, Karsjens v. Piper, examines the constitutionality of Minnesota’s policy of detaining sex offenders forever — not for what they have done, but for what they might do.
    Moreover, while the idea of indefinite preventive detention might sound un-American or something out of the film “Minority Report,” the larger problem is that “civil commitment,” like hundreds of other regulations imposed on those required registering, has been justified by assertions about the recidivism of sex offenders. However, those assertions turn out to be entirely belied by science.
    For the past 24 years, Minnesota has detained sex offenders released from prison in a “therapeutic program” conveniently located on the grounds of a maximum-security prison in Moose Lake. The “patients” are kept in locked cells, transported outside the facility in handcuffs and leg irons, and subjected to a regimen that looks, sounds and smells just like that of the prison it is adjacent to.
    However, unlike prison, this “therapeutic” program, which aims to teach the patients to control their sexual impulses and was initially designed to last from two to four years, has no fixed end date. Rather, program administrators decide which patients are safe enough to release. In the 24 years it has existed, not a single “patient” has ever been fully released. There are now about 850 people in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, some with no adult criminal record, and others who, despite having completed every single program ever offered at the facility, have remained civilly committed for over 20 years.
    The US Supreme Court has refused to review these cases.

    While civil commitment is perhaps the extreme example of punishments imposed on people convicted of sex crimes, it is by no means the only one. Driven by a pervasive fear of sexual predators, and facing no discernible opposition, politicians have become evermore inventive in dreaming up ways to corral and marginalize those forced to register — a category which itself has expanded radically and come to include those convicted of “sexting,” having consensual sex with non-minor teenagers or even urinating in public.
    These sanctions include being forced to wear (and pay for) GPS monitoring and being banned from parks, and draconian residency restrictions that sometimes lead to homelessness. Many sex offenders cannot find employment so how do they pay for the GPS bracelet.
    In addition, punishments can include, on pain of re-incarceration, undergoing interrogations using a penile plethysmograph, a device used to measure sexual arousal. They have also included requirements that those on the registry refrain from being alone with children (often including their own) and barred from holding certain jobs, like being a volunteer firefighter or driving an ice cream truck.
    In addition, when these restrictions have been challenged in court, judge after judge has justified them based on a Supreme Court doctrine that allows such restrictions, thanks to the “frightening and high” recidivism rate as described to sex offenders — a rate the court has pegged “as high as 80 percent.” The problem is this: The 80 percent recidivism rate is an entirely invented number.
    Therefore, “authorities” are going to charge pet owners with felonies if they abandoned their pets during the hurricane, but you can leave a registered sex offender on the street. It is clear a dog has more rights/merit than a RSO/human being.
    Registered sex offenders across Florida might have a hard time finding safe shelter as Hurricane Irma began pummeling the state Sunday. Many shelters across Florida were at capacity over the weekend, and few had let in sex offenders. Some were told to report to their nearest prison or jail, while others were shunned, according to local reports.
    Persons who had served their time and the last thing they want were to go back to jail or prison, even voluntarily.
    We have no thought as to how to handle sex offenders or predators once released, a list does not provide housing, therapy, or employment.
    Florida’s efforts to police its sex offender community have long made national headlines, in part; because the state has so many that, it can make it difficult for them to find legal housing. Florida forbids registered sex offenders from living close to areas where children congregate, forcing some into homelessness. A recent state study found that the number of registered sex offenders had jumped by 44 percent over the past 10 years to more than 26,000. Adding those serving time in jail or prison pushes the number to more than 66,000.
    In northern Florida, the Gadsden County Sheriff’s Office warned sex offenders to turn themselves in. Officials posted this message on Face book: “All Sex Offenders who are seeking Shelter, Please Adhere: ***All male sex offender’s that are on active supervision living in Gadsden County, if they elect to evacuate, will be required to report to the Gadsden County Annex Prison. All female sex offenders on active supervision living in Gadsden County, if they elect to evacuate, will be required to report to the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Gretna. If the sex offender or sexual predator is not currently being supervised by the Department of Corrections, the Department of Corrections will not be responsible for those offenders. Sexual Predator not being supervised by DOC should not be allowed where children congregate I.E. shelters FOR YOUR PROTECTION, LAW ENFORCEMENT WILL BE AT EACH SHELTER LOCATION.”
    In Central Florida, the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office set up a special shelter space for registered sex offenders at a local high school in Wesley Chapel. “They need someplace to go just like any other citizen,” sheriff’s representative Kevin Doll told local reporters. Offenders who showed up at shelters where children were present faced arrest.
    Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd made national headlines last week when he said anyone with outstanding warrants who sought shelter would be taken to jail. He also tweeted that the county “cannot and we will not have innocent children in a shelter with sexual offenders (and) predators.”
    Sheriff’s Office representative Carrie Hortsman said the county told registered sex offenders to go to Pasco County or find their own solution. “I mean there are hotels and motels available,” Horstman said. “… A lot of people have been leaving the state, so they can also flee north.” In order to leave the state they have to give notice and where they are going. It can also mean they have to then register in whatever state they go to.
    Sheriff Judd has many controversial requirements.
    Then you have to deal with signs in the yard of sex offenders,
    Cops in Bradford County are posting huge signs outside the homes of convicted rapists and child molesters in a bid to warn children and parents about their potential danger.
    Yet we expect them to reintegrate?

    After an emotional debate, state lawmakers on Saturday gave final legislative approval to a controversial bill that would end the lifetime listing of many convicted sex offenders on a public registry in California.
    The bill, which was shelved then revived, was sent to the governor on the last day of the legislative session with Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D-San Diego) calling it one of the most difficult votes she has cast.
    “It’s not an easy thing to do, but sometimes we have to make hard votes,” Gonzalez Fletcher told her colleagues, adding that being a mom made it difficult to change a system aimed at tracking rapists and child molesters.
    The measure by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) would allow, starting in 2021, for the names of those who committed lower-level, nonviolent sex crimes or who are judged to be low risks to re-offend to be removed from the registry after 10 or 20 years, depending on the crime. The offender must petition the local district attorney for a review.
    Wiener called his bill “a long overdue reform of California’s broken sex offender registry.”
    Gov. Jerry Brown is expected to sign the bill.
    “SB 384 proposes thoughtful and balanced reforms that allow prosecutors and law enforcement to focus their resources on tracking sex offenders who pose a real risk to public safety, rather than burying officers in paperwork that has little public benefit,” said Ali Bay, a spokeswoman for the governor.
    Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey sought the change because the current registry has grown to a difficult-to-manage 105,000 people, which reduces its value to law enforcement trying to solve sex crimes by checking those on the list.
    Because the registry is public, it also punishes people who have not committed new crimes for decades, including some who engaged in consensual sex, bill supporters argued.
    “The only other states that still use this Draconian, outdated, ineffective law are Alabama, South Carolina and Florida,” Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell) said during the floor debate.
    Shawna was deemed a sexual predator after pleading guilty to having consensual sex with a 14-year-old boy when she was 19.
    Listening to Shawna’s story, it became immediately clear that she was far from the kind of person we imagine when we think about sexual predators. She was not some serial rapist or violent pedophile, but rather a young woman who happened to hook up with the wrong person on her birthday.

    Other examples of cases;
    While some youth offenders are clearly dangerous, the report lists numerous questionable instances of sex offense, for example:
    Maya R., now age 28 and a resident of Michigan, was arrested at the age of 10 for sexual experimentation. ‘Me and my step brothers, who were ages 8 and 5, “flashed” each other and play-acted sex while fully-clothed.’ A year later, Maya pled guilty to the charges of criminal sexual conduct in the first and second degree, offenses that required her to register as a sex offender for 25 years. . . .
    In 2004, in Western Pennsylvania, a 15-year-old girl was charged with manufacturing and disseminating child pornography for having taken nude photos of herself and posted them on the internet. She was charged as an adult, and as of 2012 was facing registration for life. . . .
    In 2006, a 13-year old girl from Ogden, Utah was arrested for rape for having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend. . . . Her 12-year-old boyfriend was found guilty of violating the same law for engaging in sexual activity with her, as she was also a child under the age of 14 at the time.

    9-year-old boy registered as sex offender for playing “doctor” with a 6 year old.

    Given such low rates of recidivism among youth sex offenders, the report argues that registration laws and related restrictions can only minimally further the goal of preventing future incidents. Meanwhile, long-term, even lifetime, registration, can be damaging to children.
    Youth sex offenders on the registry experience severe psychological harm. They are stigmatized, isolated, often depressed. Many consider suicide, and some succeed. They and their families have experienced harassment and physical violence. They are sometimes shot at, beaten, even murdered; many are repeatedly threatened with violence. Some young people have to post signs stating ‘sex offender lives here’ in the windows of their homes; others have to carry drivers’ licenses with ‘sex offender’ printed on them in bright orange capital letters. Youth sex offenders on the registry are sometimes denied access to education because residency restriction laws prevent them from being in or near a school. Youth sex offender registrants despair of ever finding employment, even while they are burdened with mandatory fees that can reach into the hundreds of dollars on an annual basis.
    Given such low rates of recidivism among youth sex offenders, the report argues that registration laws and related restrictions can only minimally further the goal of preventing future incidents. Meanwhile, long-term, even lifetime, registration, can be damaging to children.
    Why not allow these young persons to be sentenced to mandatory therapy instead, then assess them and those considered not to be high risk should not have to register.

    The most restricted and watched individuals with a criminal past in our system have an extremely low recidivism rate. Yet, this misconception haunts the sex offender jurisprudence, continuing to oppress the people who are just trying to get their lives back on track.

    Here is an example of the issues we are talking about here: a 21-year-old in 2002 was charged with having consensual sex with an underage girl he was dating. He served two years of probation, and then had to register as a sex offender. He then was charged with criminal conduct a decade later -- for using social media to discuss a parking ticket. This happened in North Carolina, where the law states that it is a felony for a registered sex offender to use "commercial social networking website that the person 'knows' does not restrict usage to legal adults."
    This is too extreme and limiting, and though he may have violated the literal word of the law, the 21-year-old certainly did not violate the spirit of the law.

    Recidivism Rates for Rapists Researchers studying the recidivism of sex offenders are increasingly reporting recidivism rates specifically for rapists. Langan, Schmitt, and Durose (2003), for example, found that 5 percent of the 3,115 rapists in their study were arrested for a new sex offense during the 3-year follow-up period, 18.7 percent were arrested for a violent crime, and 46 percent were arrested for any crime. Rapists in the study with more than one prior arrest were rearrested at a rate nearly double (49.6 percent compared to 28.3 percent) that of rapists with just one prior arrest. Harris and Hanson (2004) reported sexual recidivism estimates for rapists (based on new charges or convictions) of 14 percent at 5-year follow-up, 21 percent at 10 years, and 24 percent at 15 years. Prentky and colleagues (1997) conducted another study, noteworthy because of its 25-year follow-up period. Generalizing some of the study’s findings to offenders who engage in rape behavior today is problematic because the study period began in 1959 and ended in 1985, and sex offender treatment and management practices were far different then than they are today. In addition, the study sample was small (136 rapists), and it consisted of individuals who were determined to be sexually dangerous and who were civilly committed. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that Prentky and colleagues found that some rapists remained at risk to re-offend long after their discharge.

    Recidivism Rates for Child Molesters a relatively large body of research exists on the recidivism rates of child molesters. The study of sex offenders released from state prisons in 1994, by Langan and colleagues (2003), included a large sample (N = 4,295) of child molesters. The researchers reported that 5.1 percent of the child molesters in the study were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of their release, 14.1 percent were rearrested for a violent crime, and 39.4 percent were rearrested for a crime of any kind. Similar to the pattern for rapists, child molesters with more than one prior arrest had an overall recidivism rate nearly double (44.3 percent compared to 23.3 percent) that of child molesters with only one prior arrest. As might be expected, child molesters were more likely than any other type of offender—sexual or nonsexual— to be arrested for a sex a crime against a child following release from prison. Harris and Hanson (2004) documented differential rates of recidivism for different types of child molesters. Table 1 presents the study’s recidivism estimates (based on new charges or convictions) for 5-year, 10-year, and 15year follow-up periods for boy-victim child molesters, girl-victim child molesters, and incest offenders. Prentky and his colleagues (1997) also examined the recidivism of child molesters. Based on a 25-year follow-up period, the researchers found a sexual recidivism rate of 52 percent (defined as those charged with a subsequent sexual offense) using a sample of 115 child molesters who were discharged from civil commitment in Massachusetts between 1960 and 1984. While the difference between the 52 percent sexual recidivism rate found by Prentky and colleagues (1997) using a 25-year follow-up period and the 23 percent rate found by Harris and Hanson (2004) using a 15-year follow period is striking, it can be interpreted in different ways. One interpretation is that first-time recidivism may occur for some child molesters 20 or more years after criminal justice intervention, and that recidivism estimates based on shorter follow-up periods are likely to underestimate the lifetime risk of child molester re-offending (Doren, 1998). An alternative interpretation is that the difference is primarily an artifact of sampling, as Harris and Hanson’s findings are based on a larger, more diverse sample of child molesters, including some serving community sentences, and the lifetime prevalence of sexual recidivism for child molesters is lower than the 52 percent suggested by Doren and is based, at least in part, on the Prentky et al. (1997) findings
    Property crime is actually the crime with the highest recidivism.
    Property crime is a category of crime that includes, among other crimes, burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, shoplifting, and vandalism.

    The current laws were all enacted with the best of intentions. Parents, afraid for their children, overwhelmingly supported policies that they believed would keep their communities safe. Nevertheless, as we have seen in the case of the War on Drugs, policies so deeply rooted in fear and misunderstanding will never be successful. In the meantime, they are causing a great deal of harm.

    Placement on the registry does not take into account individual risk level, meaning that people are assigned to a somewhat arbitrary term of registration, along with a tier, based solely on the broad category of crime they committed. We do not get an accurate risk level this way; crimes should be on case by case.

    “About 97.5% of the low-risk offenders were offense-free after five years, about 95% were still offense-free after 15 years,” the report said. Compare this to the fact that more individuals (3%) convicted of felonies with no sex offense on their record (who are not, therefore on the registry) will commit a sex offense within 4.5 years of release.

    In addition, this call for reform has some surprising advocates. After her eleven-year-old son Jacob was abducted and murdered in 1989, Patty Wetterling began fighting for the implementation of a national registry. However, in the intervening years, Wetterling has become a staunch supporter of smarter laws and policies. She saw firsthand the way that these laws could take on a life of their own, and have serious collateral consequences.
    We need an honest accounting of which parts of these laws are functional and which are not. We should be having a conversation, for a number of reasons. Men and women on the registry often struggle to find and maintain stable housing or employment, due to their registration status.
    While it is certainly important for law enforcement to be able to effectively monitor violent and high-risk individuals, these individuals represent a minority of those on the registry. When we register people who do not pose a serious risk to the community, we spread already scarce resources even more thinly.
    Likewise, current systems perpetuate a myth that “violent strangers” are largely responsible for committing these insidious sexual offenses—and, if we can only identify and isolate them, they can be managed.
    The reality is much more complicated.
    Their victim knows more than 90% of those who sexually offend. In fact, the stricter our laws become around sexual offenses and those who commit them, the more likely will a victim be discouraged from reporting abuse at the hands of a friend or family member, fearing the repercussions of registry and notification.
    Sophie Day
    If we truly want to make our communities safer and to reduce the number of new victims of sexual offense, then we need to pursue practices and policies that are based on evidence and not rooted in fear, or revenge.
    By using individual risk-assessments to sentence and register individuals engaging in primary prevention programs, we may actually begin to improve the safety of our communities— and and of our children.
    Sophie Day is a graduate student completing Masters in Social Work at the University of Pennsylvania. She has done clinical work with men convicted of sex offenses as well as policy research related to the laws currently on the books.

    There is no doubt that unexpected problems and blatant abuses of sex offender registration and notification laws have occurred. Many of these were foreseeable and could have been avoided with more planning, research, and forethought about potential problems. With the writing of this paper, I hope we will not take another five or six years to revise these laws. The laws need to be more uniform between states, less punitive and destructive to sex offenders, less destructive to the lives of innocent persons, and more preventive (even though prevention will only occur in a limited way with these laws). Until we look at them closely and research their potential effectiveness, I am concerned that laws designed to protect our citizens may, instead, do more damage than if they did not exist at all.

    Laws requiring sex offenders to register with law enforcement and notifying the public of their location may make us feel safer, but two scientific studies of these laws found they really do not do much to protect the public.

    In fact, one study found that making sex registry information available to the public may actually backfire, producing higher overall rates of sex crimes.

    A broader study, conducted by a researcher at the University of Chicago, found no evidence that sex offender registries increase public safety. The study found that registries do not reduce crime trends, recidivism or local sex crime rates.

    First, the researcher compared sex crime arrest rates in states before and after they passed registration laws and found no significant difference.

    Then the study looked at 9,000 sex offenders released from prison in 1994, half of whom had to register and half who did not. There was little difference in recidivism between the two groups; in fact, those who did not have to register had slightly less recidivism rates.

    The researchers speculate that the reason public notification encourages recidivism is because the offenders may feel they have nothing else to lose.

    In reality, sex offenders have among the lowest same-crime recidivism rates of any category of offender. Indeed, in the most comprehensive single study on re-offense rates to date, the U.S. Department of Justice followed every sex offender released in almost 15 states for three years. The recidivism rate? Just 3.5 percent. These numbers have been subsequently verified in study after study. The state of Connecticut Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division did a five-year study that found a recidivism rate of 3.6 percent. A Maine study found that released sex offenders were arrested for a new sex crime at a rate of 3.9 percent. Government studies in Alaska, Delaware, Iowa, and South Carolina have also replicated these results—all finding same-crime recidivism rates of between 3.5 and 4 percent.

    Everyday thousands are being added to the registry for life and there will come a point when no amount of law enforcement will be able to monitor these offenders.
    Believe it, subtract 5.3 from 100 and you have 94.7% of people once convicted of a sex offense that by the way would not necessarily involve molestation or rape, do not for the most part repeat their offense. Yes, you do hear what seem to be many sex offender cases on television these days, but in actuality, you do not. What you hear are horrific instances of sex offenses. Upward of 20 to 30% of people forced to carry the label of sex offender never molested anyone, child or adult, and yet they are made to wear the same label that the habitual and psychotic sex offender wear.
    Most of you do not know and do not care to know the people that are forced to bare the label of sex offender, many whom committed no sexual assault against anyone, nor have attempted to do so. It takes a certain type of person to physically harm another person, even emotionally harm another person.
    All that most of you can see through my-optic eyes is that anyone labeled a sex offender MUST be a molester, rapist, or sexual predator, and that simply is not true.

    "Most sexual assaults are committed by strangers."
    Fact: someone known to the victim or the victim’s family, regardless of whether the victim is a child or an adult, commits most sexual assaults.
    Adult Victims:
    Statistics indicate that the majority of women who have been raped know their assailant. A 1998 National Violence against Women Survey revealed that among those women who reported being raped, a current or former husband, live-in partner, or date (Tjaden and Thoennes, 1998) victimized 76%. Also, a Bureau of Justice Statistics study found that nearly 9 out of 10 rape or sexual assault victimizations involved a single offender with whom the victim had a prior relationship as a family member, intimate, or acquaintance (Greenfeld, 1997).
    Child Victims:
    Someone known to the child or the child’s family (Lieb, Quinsey, and Berliner, 1998) abuses approximately 60% of boys and 80% of girls who are sexually victimized. Relatives, friends, baby-sitters, persons in positions of authority over the child, or persons who supervise children are more likely than strangers to commit a sexual assault.

    "The majority of sexual offenders are caught, convicted, and in prison."
    Only a fraction of those who commit sexual assault are apprehended and convicted for their crimes. Most convicted sex offenders eventually are released to the community under probation or parole supervision.
    Many women who are sexually assaulted by intimates, friends, or acquaintances do not report these crimes to police. Instead, victims are most likely to report being sexually assaulted when the assailant is a stranger, the victim is physically injured during the assault, or a weapon is involved in the commission of the crime.
    A 1992 study estimated that only 12% of rapes were reported (Kilpatrick, Edmunds, and Seymour, 1992). The National Crime Victimization Surveys conducted in 1994, 1995, and 1998 indicate that only 32% of sexual assaults against persons 12 or older were reported to law enforcement. (No current studies indicate the rate of reporting for child sexual assault, although it generally is assumed that these assaults are equally under-reported.) The low rate of reporting leads to the conclusion that the approximate 265,000 convicted sex offenders under the authority of corrections agencies in the United States (Greenfeld, 1997) represent less than 10% of all sex offenders living in communities nationwide.
    While sex offenders constitute a large and increasing population of prison inmates, most are eventually released to the community. Some 60% of those 265,000 convicted sex offenders noted above were supervised in the community, whether directly following sentencing or after a term of incarceration in jail or prison. Short of incarceration, supervision allows the criminal justice system the best means to maintain control over offenders, monitor their residence, and require them to work and participate in treatment. As a result, there is a growing interest in providing community supervision for this population as an effective means of reducing the threat of future victimization.

    "Most sex offenders re-offend."
    Reconviction data suggest that this is not the case. Further, re-offense rates vary among different types of sex offenders and are related to specific characteristics of the offender and the offense.
    Persons who commit sex offenses are not a homogeneous group, but instead fall into several different categories. As a result, research has identified significant differences in re-offense patterns from one category to another. Looking at reconviction rates alone, one large-scale analysis (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998) reported the following differences:
    child molesters had a 13% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 37% reconviction rate for new, non-sex offenses over a five year period; and rapists had a 19% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 46% reconviction rate for new, non-sexual offenses over a five year period.

    "Treatment for sex offenders is ineffective."
    Treatment programs can contribute to community safety because those who attend and cooperate with program conditions are less likely to re-offend than those who reject intervention.
    The majority of sex offender treatment programs in the United States and Canada now use a combination of cognitive-behavioral treatment and relapse prevention (designed to help sex offenders maintain behavioral changes by anticipating and coping with the problem of relapse). Offense specific treatment modalities generally involve group and/or individual therapy focused on victimization awareness and empathy training, cognitive restructuring, learning about the sexual abuse cycle, relapse prevention planning, anger management and assertiveness training, social and interpersonal skills development, and changing deviant sexual arousal patterns.
    Different types of offenders typically respond to different treatment methods with varying rates of success. Treatment effectiveness is often related to multiple factors, including:
    The type of sexual offender (e.g., incest offender or rapist); the treatment model being used (e.g., cognitive-behavioral, relapse prevention, psycho-educational, psychodynamic, or pharmacological); the treatment modalities being used; and related interventions involved in probation and parole community supervision.
    Several studies present optimistic conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment programs that are empirically based, offense-specific, and comprehensive (Lieb, Quinsey, and Berliner, 1998). The only meta-analysis of treatment outcome studies to date has found a small, yet significant treatment effect—an 8% reduction in the recidivism rate for offenders who participated in treatment (Hall, 1995). Research also demonstrates that sex offenders who fail to complete treatment programs are at increased risk for both sexual and general recidivism (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998).

    "The cost of treating and managing sex offenders in the community is too high—they belong behind bars."
    One year of intensive supervision and treatment in the community can range in cost between $5,000 and $15,000 per offender, depending on treatment modality. The average cost for incarcerating an offender is significantly higher, approximately $22,000 per year, excluding treatment costs.
    As noted previously, effective sex offender specific treatment interventions can reduce sexual offense recidivism by 8%. Given the tremendous impact of these offenses on their victims, any reduction in the re-offense rates of sex offenders is significant.
    Without the option of community supervision and treatment, the vast majority of incarcerated sex offenders would otherwise serve their maximum sentences and return to the community without the internal (treatment) and external (supervision) controls to effectively manage their sexually abusive behavior. Managing those offenders who are amenable to treatment and can be supervised intensively in the community following an appropriate term of incarceration can serve to prevent future victimization while saving taxpayers substantial imprisonment costs (Lotke, 1996).

    Sex offenders are treated uniquely under state and federal law as the only offenders whose punishment does not end once they have completed their court-imposed sentence. For many, the punishments they suffer after finishing their sentences are much harsher than those they received from a judge.

    Should Some Persons Be Monitored For Life?
    Yes, but not all, we need to look not only at the crime but also at the person. One size does not fit all.

    Monitored for a period of 15 years to life:
    Murder by Abuse
    Rape of Adult, Child, Disabled, Elderly, or Incapacitated.
    Production of Child Porn (making child porn)
    Child Molestation
    Trafficking of children or adults (human trafficking)
    Sex or rape of an animal (Bestiality)
    Grooming of child for purpose of sex or transfer of pornographic pictures (to include soft porn and explicit porn pictures)
    Statutory rape that does not fall within the Romeo and Juliet guidelines
    Abuse resulting in injury to a child/animal/elderly/adult

    These are Tier 3 Predator / Violent crimes

    These are crimes that should be monitored for a period and on a “list” whether public or law enforcement only, and should have strict sentencing guidelines.

    If public what is listed;
    Name, age, date of birth
    Height, weight, race, sex eye color, hair color
    Address of current residence (visible only to law enforcement)
    Description of the crime committed, where and when it was committed and the sentence received.
    Designation of risk level.

    What about Drug Trafficking?
    Should they be listed?

    Only those that are the “most dangerous” high risk predators or violent should be subjected to residency restrictions within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, playground, park or other place frequented by children.

    In only listing these persons it is easier for law enforcement to monitor them, and communities would actually be safer.
    Offering treatment for those that are low risk or moderate risk is a long-term effective way of protecting the community.
    So what is the “right answer”?
    We have found the laws we have do not actually prevent crimes, however they have destroyed many lives.
    What if we try a new approach?
    Juvenile and Youthful Offenders first time offenders should not be listed.
    As long as the act was not Rape, Molestation, Murder, should they not be given a chance to have an actual life?
    Why not sentence these persons to therapy? Then after 5 to 10 years have a re-assessment of their risk, level completed. If they are low to moderate risk then allow for automatic removal?
    As seen the risk level for recidivism drops each year, by 5 to 10 years the risk is very low. These are not violent criminals, or predators.
    What is a youthful offender age range?
    A young delinquent, especially a first offender, usually from 14 to 21 years old

    (Birth to age 21 years)
    These are young persons who have not mentally reached maturity, they should be treated but not placed on a “list” unless they are violent offenses, or repeat offenders. (Crimes committed on more than one arrest)
    The human brain does not reach maturity until age 25 or even 26; this is the frontal cortex that controls; Impulse, and consequences.

    Why are these people on a sex offender list?
    Romeo and Juliet crimes
    Urinating in public
    Why not remove them immediately, to be retroactive?

    Possession of child porn/ sharing (promoting) via peer-to-peer first time offense. Therapy to continue for 5 to 10 years, with the offender to pay up to half of the cost of therapy. Payment based on a sliding fee scale (income based), the rest paid by the Department of Corrections, or through government funds.
    Why not remove from list, and require therapy instead?

    A heinous crime is an action that is not just illegal, but it is also considered hateful or reprehensible.
    The heinous act to destroy humanity, self-respect and anything, which can be harmful to masses, is called as crime.
    Some would argue that the Sex Offender List when it comes to low risk or moderate risk does just this.

    Paying to get off the list
    "What sex offender who can't find a job is going to be able to pay the legal fees to get off the registry?"

    Removal should be automatic and free ( when your time on the list is done you should automatically come off of the list).

    There are so many people on the list that law enforcement can’t keep track of them all, meaning there are Tier 3 dangerous offenders unaccounted for.
    Why not reduce the numbers so that these persons are kept track of and do not fall through the cracks?

    BOSTON (AP) — the Massachusetts
    The Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry has lost track of more than 1,700 convicted sex offenders, according to a state audit released on Wednesday.
    The report from the office of Auditor Suzanne Bump concluded that the registry lacks adequate policies and procedures to ensure that sex offenders are promptly classified. As a result, the public has no way to know if some potentially dangerous sex offenders live in their communities, while the risk that those individuals will commit new crimes increases, Bump said.
    As of February, the registry did not have current addresses for 1,769 people who were convicted of sex crimes between October 1996 and January 2017, and have been released from prison or are on parole, according to the audit. Of that total, the registry has yet to classify the threat level of 936 individuals, including more than 300 that had committed sex crimes against children.

    Florida has over 400 absconded person for sex crimes, 440 for other violent crimes, 110 for crimes against elderly or disabled, 3083 for assault and battery, 7099 for drug crimes, 218 for kidnapping, 48 for murder, and 36 for manslaughter.

    A study published in 2012 disputed the claims that 100,000 registered sex offenders in the US are "missing." The study, conducted by University of Massachusetts Lowell criminologist Andrew Harris and myself, was published in the scientific journal Criminal Justice Policy Review. It analyzed data downloaded directly from online sex offender registries in 2010 and also surveyed states' registry managers.
    The study utilized a sample of more than 445,000 registered sex offenders listed on public registries. Harris and I were able to identify sex offenders designated by states to be transient, homeless, absconded, non-compliant or whose address or whereabouts were otherwise unknown. Nationwide, about 2.4 percent were officially listed as absconded, unable to be located or non-compliant with registration mandates. When including those designated as homeless or transient, the rate grew to slightly over four percent.

    I’m sure these numbers have grown, I know the man who murdered my brother absconded years ago, after threatening to kill any of my siblings and myself.

    Some states, such as Louisiana, stamp “SEX OFFENDER” in large red script on driver’s licenses.

    Having a mug shot disseminated across internet search engines is only the tip of the iceberg; once registered, offenders are subject to a wide array of housing and employment restrictions

    In many places in the U.S., sex offenders are effectively zoned out of cities and towns because there are no residential areas that satisfy all of the numerous regulations. For example, offenders may be prohibited from living within a certain number of feet from a playground. Florida is a state that makes it hard for a sex offender to find employment, and housing. Persons like Ron and Lauren Books are bent on revenge, even though the woman who molested/raped her is in prison.
    They are often left with no choice but to live under highways or in improvised communities, such as the one in Pahokee, Florida depicted in the New York Times 2013 short film, “Sex Offender Village.” Even then Ron Books, who is in charge of homeless, is not happy and forces them out of warehouse districts, promising them his help. He has yet to help them find housing.

    From a public safety perspective, scholars note that registries provide the public with a false sense of security: While the existence of sex offender registries reinforces a myth of “stranger danger,” most offenders in reality are acquaintances or family members. Balancing the thin support of the registries’ effectiveness against the more robust evidence of their negative effects, one scholar recently concluded these policies do more harm than good.

    The sponsor of the bill, Rodney Schad, R-Versailles, said that only about 5 percent of sexual offenders ever re-offend, and that many of the offenders are guilty of simply being, "young, dumb and stupid." He said people found guilty of offenses like public urination have been put into the same shunned category as pedophiles and child rapists.

    "So when we get on the website, we look and we see all these offenders living around us. It has desensitized us to who the true dangers of society are," he said. "We want to go back to the original intent of this bill."
    House Bill 1700 would remove some offenders from the registry, such as those guilty of promoting obscenity, second- and third-degree sexual misconduct, such as exposing oneself, or furnishing pornographic materials to minors. The bill received near unanimous and overwhelmingly bipartisan support in the Republican-controlled House and now advances to the Senate.

    All other crimes are allowed to move on they do their time and are released, to reintegrate back into society. It is easy to HATE a sex offender. However, not all sex offenders are child rapist, or molesters. We cannot treat all offenders the same, the Tier system does just that. There needs to individual case-by-case sentences, one size does not fit all.
    In the time when our sex offender laws were first brought to the public’s attention there had been a series of high profile crimes.
    Adam Walsh, and Jessica Lunsford being two of those cases, they were horrible crimes, and while I truly do feel sorry for the families, we allowed our emotions to rule our laws.
    Laws based on revenge is not the answer, laws are supposed to rehabilitate individuals these do not. They are supposed to allow those that have paid their debt to reintegrate these do not.
    I am not saying turn all sex offenders lose and do away with the "list" I merely think we should take a very close look at it, and base the laws on scientific research, not emotion.
    You say what I know of the pain these persons have felt. I was abused; I was stolen from my birth parents by a crooked CPS system. My removal was illegal, this from the once head of CPS at the time of my removal.
    My daughters have been raped, one as a young adult, drugged and raped. The other as a younger teen anger, groomed and raped.
    My son molested as a child, we found this out when he was arrested at 18 for having child porn on his computer, and then unknowingly sharing it via peer to peer aka Lime Wire.
    Were the rapist ever caught or punished? No
    My son is on a lifetime list in Florida, even though it was his first offense, and his attorney, a probation officer, and the judge all believe he is low risk. He is 25 now and his only escape is death, he wanted to go to college, but cannot. He holds a job, and he served 4 years in jail/prison, he has no friends, no relationships. He knows he will never marry, have a family, and he has no life.
    My daughters the oldest lost primary custody of her son over the rape, and the officer who responded, made no report. He did call CPS, who determined no risk of abuse. He did not call an ambulance even though she was unconscious, he did not call me, and she was left alone in her apartment. He was dismissed from the force about 6 months later due to inappropriate misconduct with a female prisoner.
    My youngest, was groomed for two years, the first sexual encounter was "consensual" even though in Florida 18 is the age of consent she was 15. The second act, was forcible, her justice was an injunction. She was raped within 30 feet of her home, she cried out for me that night, but I was working one of my three jobs.
    His girlfriend who is now pregnant with his child still lives next door, she recently posted on face book that he had fixed her car, which we saw at her apartment that is about 30 feet from our house on jack stands. There is an injunction against him that he cannot be within 500 feet of our home.
    Our property owner blames my now 16 year old for it all, "she got herself into a situation".
    So yes, I do understand the emotions behind many of the laws.
    In addition, it is funny that the same laws that some advocates helped pass they themselves broke.

    Persons like John Walsh who had a relationship with Reve his now ex-wife when she was 16 and he was 23, the age of consent in New York State where they were from was 17. This would be statutory rape, by definition many persons are listed for life with this conviction.
    Marc Lunsford who had child porn downloaded and viewed on his computer at the time his daughter disappeared. Law Enforcement didn't press charges because he had been through so much, many are on the list for 15 years to life for this offense.
    There are many other questionable advocates, but the fact is we have allowed the laws to over step there bounds. It is time to reform the laws and use some common sense, and solid scientific research to make new ones.
    Moreover, if we are going to reform these laws we also need to look at programs that include foster-care, education, animal abuse, domestic, elder, and child abuse.
    We need to look at funding for affordable child care, so many people complain of mothers not working and having children living in housing and on welfare, but they can not afford child care. Worse the ones that leave their kids with boyfriends who abuse and murder their children.
    Our nation has many policies and programs that need serious reform. The millions of dollars we spend each year on laws and programs that
  • Anonymous
    Aug 26, 2017
    Aug 26, 2017
    Our sex offender laws are out of control, with over 800,000 people listed and still growing. It's time to take a look at reforming our laws, and reduce the amount of persons on the list. To also take Tier 1 offenders off of the public list, and to give persons in all states that are Tier 1 and Tier 2 (non-violent) offenders a way to come off of the list. These lists started as a way to track Tier 3 violent offenders, rapist, child molesters.
  • Mary Curro
    Mary Curro United States, Norfolk
    Jul 25, 2017
    Jul 25, 2017
    There are many who have been falsely accused and had their lives ruined by these draconic and cruel laws. It is absurd to equate child predator situations with domestic spats. Registration should be terminated when the behavior has not shown itself in three years.
  • Barbara Humphreys-Hubbell
    Barbara Humphreys-Hubbell United States, Daytona Beach
    Jul 08, 2017
    Jul 08, 2017
    I believe that the sex offender laws were created not out of concern for our society but as an act of vengeance. Through 20 years of research it has shown that the residency laws do not help to make our children safer. We continue to condemn individuals that are teens, young adults, or even children themselves. We punish for offenses such as mooning, or urinating in public. There are some individuals that yes belong on a registry but Tier 1 and even Tier 2 offenders do not deserve to suffer for the rest of their lives. We need to take a long hard look at these laws and judge individuals on a case by case basis. We also need to remove those with less serious crimes from the registry altogether. Those that can reintegrate back into society and live crime free need to be allowed to do so. Those that can not be helped, the worst of the worst are the people who should then be on a life time list, for the public to view. Lower Tiers should only be visible to law enforcement and Judges, and then only Tier 2. And should be allowed to come off the list with in 10 years if they can show they have rejoined society and pose no threat. Tier 1 should be allowed to be removed within 5 years. Our laws should also be uniform and not vary from state to state or even county to county. These laws do far more harm than they do good.
See More


  • 3 months ago
    Mary Curro United States
    3 months ago
  • 3 months ago
    Barbara Humphreys-Hubbell United States
    3 months ago
  • 2 years ago
    Virginia Krappitz United States
    2 years ago
  • 2 years ago
    Rose Harper United States
    2 years ago
  • 4 years ago
    maria United States
    4 years ago
  • 4 years ago
    Gerald Wennerstrom Mexico
    4 years ago
  • 4 years ago
    marianicola laskowski United States
    4 years ago
  • 4 years ago
    Caitlin Callow United States
    4 years ago
  • 4 years ago
    Sheryl Callow United States
    4 years ago
  • 4 years ago
    Linda Clark United States
    4 years ago
  • 4 years ago
    Madison Gentry United States
    4 years ago
  • 4 years ago
    Mary Jo Steilen United States
    4 years ago
  • 4 years ago
    Nick Gentry United States
    4 years ago
  • 4 years ago
    Mary Jo Gentry United States
    4 years ago
  • 4 years ago
    Mary Jo Gentry United States
    4 years ago
See More