One of the biggest problems with the registry is the state is trying to oversee ALL sex offenders---all 750,000 of them---equally, which allows some of the most dangerous to fall through the cracks.. There are far too many people on the registry.

The state is just putting too many offenders on the registry for too long a period of time and trying---apparently unsuccessfully---to keep track of them all.

They should have a provision where a registrant can get off the registry after a certain length of time and the classifications should not be based on crime alone. The crime for which the registrant was convicted is important, but there are other variables that determine a registrants likelihood to reoffend.

A lifetime registration for someone who has been crime free for 10 years is just insane and it clutters up the registry.

By the way, I firmly believe the registry should be abolished---PERIOD---but that is beside the point here.

When they put that many people on the registry and treat them all as tier 3 or the most dangerous, they have to allocate their resources equally instead of dedicating the most resources to the most dangerous and most likely to reoffend.

For example, I never had a problem with law enforcement before my arrest and conviction and have never had any problems with the police since my release from prison. I was not even guilty. I am an older guy with a stable income and own my own home. I don't bother anyone, as I spend most of my time with my son and my animals. So you would think that I would be designated as low risk. WRONG.

When Oklahoma instituted the tiers in 2007, I, along with most registrants were place into tier 3. I register every 90 days.

My registration requirements are the same or more strict than the guy who has several convictions----even though they might not be sex crimes----who has no home, has no family, and no stable job. Does that make sense? No

This is the same thing that happened in the Jaycee Dugard case. The state attempted to watch over so many guys when they should have put more resources toward the pervert that kidnapped that poor child and kept her for a couple of decades.

Of course, when their classification system is so inefficient and they have most everyone designated as tier 3, they cannot discern who is the most dangerous.

Of course, our politicians want to be "tough on crime" instead of "smart on crime" and this is what happens. There is no commons sense applied to the registration scheme for sex offenders.

rewdiazepam

REW, such a good, common sense commentary. My wish; may it go from your fingers to the governments ears.

Amen .if someone been crime free as you say 10yrs i agree alloe them to be deemed not at risk and give them freedom back and not have to live under these dracorian laws they give us .people that is doing right.no troubles .should be given chance .25 yrs to life on registry to me is life .thinking avout all them yrs my hub and our family has to deal with this makes me saddened and thinking about 750000 others on it is very sad plus their families .the defender told us it was 25yrs to hubby be on it ..he be in 50s .by time hes off it .almost 60yrs old .our son dont have a father to be able ti participate in life school .sports.family fun ..they govt dont care..we treated as lepars and shunned.and not given chance even after many yrs on registry ..there needs to be some kind of change in all this.restoration plan .if followed no problems u let off registry .if you reaffend and done wrong after on registry .then thats the people whom should be given even more time on it .up to 20 more years for reaffending .but those who do right shoukdnt have to pay price for those who go back to reaffending .

And if you reaffend after being on registry then u should be given jail time !

Rew, you seriously need to start speaking at the Capitol. Or at the very least on the state level. I'd be there right along with you.

The CASOMB released a report recommending a tiered registry. In that report, they even show that the "tier 3" registrants, after 17.5 yrs of no new offenses, have the same offense rate as the rest of the population "base line". So even having tiers at 10, 20 and life make no sense if a registrant doesn't reoffend. I think they should have a LE only registration for 10 yrs, period. If you reoffend, then you add another 10 yrs to the registry.

However, any change to our current system of registration for life is better. Hoping CARSOL is able to work with legislators to get a tiered registry based on risk and not on crimes charged with.

I agree. Your comment is so well worded, and it is logical and only makes sense. I know, most people would have to see your point if they really thought this through. Plus, the article mentioned another aspect of sex offender "penalties". I thought it was not supposed to be punitive to be on the registry? I will print the article and bring it with me to show whoever argues that is is strictly regulatory.

Hey that one article where that woman trying make mini parks to keep people out .i read that theirs law suits going on now .the families are speaking up .in that state ..if every state did same thing .maybe govt would get tired of it and give us our liberty life to live breath work sleep where we wanted.i keep thinking its our children who one day be the ones to speak up and get changes we needs .they dont deserve be treated as outcast!.

Who would've thought that probation and parole officers having an overwhelmingly large caseload would lead to something like the tragedy that occurred? For those that are wine drinkers, you may have come across a wine that is designated as "reserve". That usually means they cut off about half the grapes off the vine so the plant could focus it's full energy on growing the very best grapes that are still on the vine. That is exactly what is needed in sex offender management, we need to prune the registry. One parole officer tracking 40 violent sex offenders is unacceptable.

When you have a one time offender on the same list as someone who rapes multiple victims it doesn't make sense. A lot of the time they are even tired the same which does not serve to protect the public. This will never happen but as a society we need to look at all crime through the lens of recidivism. Once someone is punished, we need to find the best way to keep that recidivism rate as low as possible. That should be the goal, less victims. Specific incapacitation does not work, it hasn't worked, it just gets us more people in prison that we as tax payers have to pay for.

The public is so delusional, "lock'em up and throw away the key" doesn't work because they eventually get out. What do you do with someone who can't get a job, can't find stable housing, and doesn't have a family support system? What chance do you give them of not re-offending? It's group-think fulfilling prophecy.

Off my soap box.

Independent2014 = interesting take on the subject but i have to respectfully disagree with you. Sex offenses are the only crimes that are treated this way - most other crimes are usually thought of as degrees of severity and the punishment is supposed to rehabilitate not prevent re-offense. That train of thought points to the once a sex offender always a sex offender = a bogus media and political fallacy. Most sex offenders do not re-offend because they really were not criminals to begin with - most sex crimes are one time occurrences that are a miscalculation of judgement for whatever reason. Not to mention the entrapment stings and the people pressured into taking plea.

You may not realize it but your statement that "When you have a one time offender on the same list as someone who rapes multiple victims it doesn't make sense" actually lumps sex offenders in to one category - of course you divide them by those who only offend once and those who re-offend but it projects that all the sex crimes are the same - they are not at all the same and many are punished unconstitutionally and much harsher and life altering than they should be,

Oh I agree that if there is a SO registry it should be LE only, but given the rates of re-offense I question even that. Police can already pull up and cross reference people and their crimes, keeping it for LE may be a waste of money.

My comments are meant to be more practical, we are not all of the sudden going to wake up and have the registry gone. It is going to take time, and lots of little baby steps. If it ever happens in my lifetime I see it happening more like the gay marriage movement.

So if we are going to have the registry, pruning it is a great first step.

Iam still trying to work out how these lists are supposed to protect anyone....i still think it should only be in the hands of the police. But it's good to see a bit of sense at least.