I have been told that there are several countries that SO's can legally enter and obtain citizenship WITHOUT being labeled an SO. UNLESS they travel back to the US,where the SO status stands as it did when he left the USA.

I cannot recommend any specific state as I do not know the statutes regarding sex offenders in each state, but I can tell you states to avoid like the plague. Any state in the Bible Belt will have draconian, very harsh, and very severe laws against sex offenders.

Most of the states in the Bible Belt have citizens who are no more than a bunch of ignorant hillbillies. These rednecks demand legislation that squeezes the "last pound of flesh" out of sex offenders. And the legislatures of these states are all too willing to pass these laws so they can be seen as "hard on crime."

Even if there were a few lawmakers in these states that realize the ridiculousness of these sex offender laws, they do not have the courage to speak up because they do not want to look as if they are supporting sex offenders and child molesters.

I spoke to one lawmaker about the residency restrictions and pointed out how they do not decrease sex offences, but they do alienate the sex offenders by making many of them homeless. I had all sorts of statistics to bolster my argument, but it did not matter. The representative actually said to me, "We realize that the residency restrictions do not work and they are probably counter productive, but there is no way that the legislature will overturn these laws."

So, stay away from Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, etc. You can look on the map and see the states to avoid. Too many fruitcakes live there.

I do believe that Colorado is one of the best states for sex offenders. Kansas is still pretty good, but recently they have started passing a few laws that are not good. They didn't used to have residency restrictions.

But stay away from the Bible Belt states--they are poison to sex offenders.

rew

well for the most part thats true key west is a pretty good spot to be theres quite a few so's down here and i have not reaally seen them not being able to find work. even in group when we got new members usually within a few weeks they had work. only problem is hopusing its gets a whole lot easier if your not trying to live in key west itself but up the keys also if you choose that options u dont have to worry bout school zones or day cares or stuff like that is all i key west except for one school 20 miles away. but for mainland florida rew is absolutly correct they have so's living in swamps with no running water .

I want to know what countries are SO friendly....I want OUT of this country!

I am definitely considering Costa Rica.. I have time to save some money.. My son still has 19 months to go in federal and 15 years probation. But it's ultimately up to him. I was thinking about getting dual citizenship and using Costa Rica as a base. I have done searches but have been unable to come up with other countries that would be as free as CR.

well costa rica you can still get arrested ffor not registering i read in the paper a few years ago about a guy who went there thinking that fbi arrested him an hauled him back to the us . costa rica is a protectoriate so u will still have same stuff there as well

PA isn't too bad

This question comes up an awful lot.

Worst states-- Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, California, Washington, Georgia, Minnesota, and Missouri are the worst,
the SE states suck in general,
and remember 15 states have the Adamned Walsh Act:

Ohio - 09/30/09
Delaware -05/03/10
Florida -05/18/10
South Dakota - 10/15/10
Michigan - 05/12/11
Nevada - 05/12/11
Wyoming - 05/12/11
Louisiana - 07/07/11
Alabama - 07/27/11
Kansas - 07/27/11 (Possibly reconsidering)
Maryland - 07/27/11
Mississippi - 07/27/11
Missouri - 07/27/11 (though they may renege on that compliance)
South Carolina - 07/27/11
Pennsylvania - 12/20/11

As far as "best" states, think of them more as lesser evils rather than "best states" because they still suck, just suck less-- Oregon, Hawaii, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Colorado, Kansas (despite the AWA)and Nebraska

Ohio can be good or bad depending on WHEN you were convicted.

MN has only their worst on the PUBLIC registry which is about 3500 if even that. While they may never let you out if they civilly commit you, they do have a rating system and a tier system that can keep you off the public registry.

WI is one that is pretty bad as far as what will get you on the registry and everyone is public. They have lifetime GPS that is mandated by statute and decided on by the SORP. Which means that if you have the correct types of charges on your record you could be deemed to need lifetime GPS if you move here.

Oregon I have heard is OK as they have saner ways of the way they regulate things. Nebraska is starting to see the light but their AWA compliance laws are atrocious. If you have been convicted of the proper crime you will be registering every 90 days in every county that you live and work in. So if they are different then you would have to register 2 places every 90 days.

No state is good, but they are right stay away from the Bible Belt and most of those below. NM I have heard isn't as bad but then again they don't have the populations that other states do.

My hubby and I WERE thinking Indiana, but their laws seem to pretty excessive, so we are rethinking and thinking about OH-he was convicted in 99-..but for right now, we live in MI

UK Won't Extradite Sex Criminal Over State's Sex Offender Law

U.K. Won't Extradite Sex Criminal Over State's Sex Offender Law
Jun 28th, 2012 03:36 PM
LONDON—An English court has ruled that a dual U.S-Irish citizen who fled to Ireland in the 1990s after being accused of "raping a 14-year-old girl and sexually molesting two 11-year-olds in Minnesota" may not be extradited back to the States, the Washington Post has reported. The justification for the unusual ruling is that Minnesota has what the English High Court believes is too onerous a law regarding sex offenders.

According to the Post, "The Minnesota program, which began in the mid-1990s, allows civil courts to commit a person for sex offender treatment if a judge decides the person is sexually psychopathic or sexually dangerous. As of April 1, 641 people were in the program.

"The program," the articles continued, "has been criticized for holding people indefinitely beyond their prison sentences."

The convicted child rapist, 43-year-old Shawn Sullivan, who fled the country after being accused of the crimes but before being convicted in absentia, was tracked to London two years ago, "where he’d moved using an Irish passport that spelled his last name in Gaelic as 'O’Suilleabhain.'"

Though the magistrates overseeing the case made it clear that were it not for the law they would have approved the extradition of Sullivan, they could not overcome "a litany of concerns" about the law, including that "offenders don’t have to be mentally ill to be committed; their offenses don’t have to be recent; and in some cases, those placed in the program don’t even have to have been convicted of any crime."

“There is a real risk that if returned," the judges wrote in the June 20 order, "Mr. Sullivan will be the subject of an order of civil commitment," and characterized such a possible punishment as a "flagrant denial" of his civil rights.

Sullivan's attorney, Peter Wold, agreed, commenting on the judge's concern about the prospect of indefinite detention for his client: “That offended them, and it should offend a lot of people, to have the prospect of people being committed with no end in sight."

The lawyer for Sullivan's victims, Michael Hall III, expressed disappointment with the ruling, saying, "Now, really the only avenue available to his victims in the U.S. is through the civil courts."

A civil lawsuit was filed in January, but Hall admitted that even though he anticipates “significant punitive damages” against Sullivan, it will be difficult for his clients to enforce a judgment if Sullivan remains on foreign soil

Check out Oregan. The SOR laws seem fair and it is one of the few states that allow a person to vote as soon as they leave prison. New Jersey's laws are also worth taking a look at.

Were in Utah, and I've heard Utah is a pretty good state as far as SO's are concerned.

I thank all of you heartily and you have given me great info and insite. Will be looking into the states that were mentioned as the lesser of evils. I can't thank you all enough. Will continue to check in for any additional news. I will have some good news to write my son at last. He wants to retrain and go to school for marine mechanic so know he will be glad of the coastal states that were mentioned. Am so grateful, you cannot immagine.