Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
ahh the Daily strength crowd "Is valigator right"? Where Valigator is rightPosted on 07/06/14, 07:50 pm I know what you are thinking, there is never under any scenario where Val is right. But I think she raises a good point that we as a movement need to take into consideration. When we as the sex offender lobby state that there are many seemingly benign crimes that could land you on the registry we are not doing ourselves any favors. Yes, it is technically possible that crimes such as urinating in public, streaking, Romeo and Juliet statutory rape, making love in public etc, can land you on the registry. However, this is not the majority of the people on the registry. It is not a good idea to use these extreme examples to show why the registry is invalid. Valigator correctly in my opinion calls bull s*** on this, and I think she speaks for the average joe. If I did not have a background in this, I would say, well let's jus take those crimes off of the list of having to register, problem solved. We should not try and sell this to the public, because they are not buying it. Even if a majority of people on the registry were on it for those types of crimes wouldn't it make more sense to fix the problem of having those crimes on the registry? How many people on this forum have a loved one or are an offender because of urinating in public, romeo and Juliet statutory rape, streaking, making love in public? How many people on this forum are here for any of the above listed crimes? Just from casual observance of the posts, it seems like a majority of the people on this forum are here because of CP.? whats the matter val??? running out of your own ideas for your blog that you have to steal from here?????
ahh the Daily strength crowd "Is valigator right"? Where Valigator is rightPosted on 07/06/14, 07:50 pm I know what you are thinking, there is never under any scenario where Val is right. But I think she raises a good point that we as a movement need to take into consideration. When we as the sex offender lobby state that there are many seemingly benign crimes that could land you on the registry we are not doing ourselves any favors. Yes, it is technically possible that crimes such as urinating in public, streaking, Romeo and Juliet statutory rape, making love in public etc, can land you on the registry. However, this is not the majority of the people on the registry. It is not a good idea to use these extreme examples to show why the registry is invalid. Valigator correctly in my opinion calls bull s*** on this, and I think she speaks for the average joe. If I did not have a background in this, I would say, well let's jus take those crimes off of the list of having to register, problem solved. We should not try and sell this to the public, because they are not buying it. Even if a majority of people on the registry were on it for those types of crimes wouldn't it make more sense to fix the problem of having those crimes on the registry? How many people on this forum have a loved one or are an offender because of urinating in public, romeo and Juliet statutory rape, streaking, making love in public? How many people on this forum are here for any of the above listed crimes? Just from casual observance of the posts, it seems like a majority of the people on this forum are here because of CP.? whats the matter val??? running out of your own ideas for your blog that you have to steal from here?????
Never assume being off the registry ends your woes.
I still can't live a 'normal' life.
Your fight is my fight. And my fight isn't to get people who peed in public off the registry.
It's to eliminate the registry or reduce it to real predators at risk of reoffending as evaluated fairly.
So we keep pointing out the urination crimes and they probably will in our lifetime be removed.
Count the avatars of those on who will suddenly be free because we removed public urination or indecent exposure. Not me.
As for other crimes they are adding - yes it is stupidity. As is a DUI registry, violent crime registry and domestic crime registry.
I'm not saying don't mention that stupidity. But somehow we need to step it up a notch and say 'hey, even people convicted of 'real' / 'more serious' crimes shouldn't be on a registry. It serves no purpose and actually causes harm. '
I will concede only this far-- if there must exist a registry, it must return to the guidelines of the Jacob Wetterling Act of 1994, a police-access-only list, only of repeat or serious offenders, and ten years registration tops.
Maybe you could persuade me that real predators could exist on a police only list.
Otherwise remove them all.
Although having the 'drunk pissers' registered has helped draw attention to the stupidity I want that attention drawn to all the crimes and how the registry is ineffective.
The great unwashed have got to be informed about what this is costing with no benefit. They want lower taxes but the prison industry demands more tax dollars. The more people they lock up, the more jobs. The more jobs, the better the economy looks. It's all a money game.
Tell me if I'm wrong.
Pay her no mind.
To say we need to remove the entire list of sex offenders because our government has added crimes to the list that don't make sense does not compute. It is not an argument that resonates well with anyone other than sex offenders and their families.
Maybe as a psychology person coolrich you can look at it like this. Trying to say that we should abolish the registry because of Romeo and Juliet laws is a form of minimizing the index crime we are on the registry for. We should not be trying to equate all SO's as the lowest level of crime on the registry. That is dishonest and people see through that.
When I first went on the registry for CP, I was not on the pubic website. Then, some brilliant politician looking for votes pushed a law through my state putting all in the public stocks.
It the reversal has to start somewhere. If it is removing R&Js and piss off the deck drunks, that is a start. But, it should be viewed that way. As a start.
I may be a provoking conversation because I do not like the direction some are going in right now, but I am most certainly not on team Val. Just trying to stop the group think that can happen when there is a lack of outside influence.
Doesn't change the fact that it is a red herring and it loses us as a group credibility when it is brought up ALL the time.
You should consider the fact that we have a far more difficult task to prove our points, and we don't prove them by shrinking away from challenges. The other side can make generalizations and rely on dubious stats or anecdotes. We have the burden of proof because of our status alone. It is our STATUS that gives us difficulties with credibility, not our message. We are dehumanized. No matter what we say, people assume what they want about us. We waste far too much time trying to cater to those people (even those of the reptilian persuasion) than we do sticking to our message.
If you understand anything about propaganda and persuasion, you should realize that consistency in our message and mission is key. We have not been consistent because we waste time airing out our grievances with each other's philosophies in a public venue rather than a private forum.
In regards to our reptilian admirer, the upside is few people pay much attention to her, even other vigilantes.
However, the Internet has also changed the landscape of propaganda. Anyone, even an alcoholic reptile with a criminal record, can say anything online, and the victim then has to address the claim lest people assume it to be true. Most people are susceptible to believing anything they read on the internet.
Why is it a red herring? Because only a small minority of the people are on the registry for these issues. Again if I was your opponent in a debate and you brought that up how you can get on the registry. I would say fine, let's take those off the registry. It is a red herring because this talking point doesn't apply to 95% of sex offenders. Just like we think the sex offender registry is a red herring to stopping new sex crimes, because 95% of all sex crimes are perpetrated by people not on the registry!
If you don't like it, feel free to start your own organization and recruit like-minded people to your group. Good luck with that. Otherwise, enough with your asinine opinions. Give it a rest.
You do know she is laughing at us all don't you?
Why the hell do we give a shit what that nasty, illiterate, self hating drunk thinks or reads????
Valerie Parkhurst.
6230 SW 38th street, Davie FL., 33314......