legislation; not legalization. Forgive my typo.

There are only two avenues which can stop the proliferation of these restrictive laws and the expansion of the sex offender registry----

1) The first avenue is for enough citizens to decide that these registration laws are unfair and counterproductive, and they will then clamor to the politicians that they want the laws to cease or be scaled back. Other than some of the R&J laws, these laws will continue as there is no political will to change them.

2) The second avenue for relief is through the courts.

The key to halting much of this mess involves the lawmakers. They are the ones enacting all these laws related to the sex offender registry. Until we can slow down the lawmakers, there is no hope of our movement being very successful.

Educating the public, advocacy, speaking to the lawmakers, etc. can be successful to a point, but consider this----

The movement to abolish the sex offender registry and to enact sensible legislation in that area has often been compared with the struggle the blacks endured in the civil rights movement in the mid-1960's, but there are differences.

In the mid-1950's there were approximately 150 million people in this country. Of those 150 million, 15 million were black folks.

We currently have close to one million registrants in this country. If each registrant has four family members that support him or her, that is a total of five million people directly supporting fairer laws for registrants in this country.

I feel safe saying that sex offenders are hated much more in this country than black folks.

If 15 million black folks could never affect a change in the 1950's, then I don't think registrants---who are the pariahs of society----can make a lot of headway with only five million supporters.

One line of thought is that things will change when and only when enough people and their families are negatively affected by these registries and they in turn speak out to the politicians.

But there will never be enough people in this country to support our movement to persuade the politicians to roll back some of these laws or diminish the registry.

All the rallies for reasonable sex offender legislation will not faze legislators as long as they know the majority of their constituents LOVE the sex offender registry. Legislators are not humanitarians and they will not vote against their own self interests by helping us in any way. They like their jobs too well and want to get elected too badly to jeopardize their chances of staying in office by promoting fairer sex offender laws. That just will not happen.

Therefore, the only avenue left to help our movement is through the courts. Affecting legislation through the courts is not only the fastest method, but it is also one of the surest, since a court decision takes the lawmaking ability out of the hands of the legislators.

We have had much greater success through the courts getting registrants removed from the registry and getting some of these laws overturned than we will ever have trying to convince legislators to be reasonable.

Look at the success Janice has had in California. There have been several state cases in with the retroactivity of SORNA was attacked and we won, which resulted in several thousand being immediately removed from the registry and many more having their registration period rolled back from lifetime to their original registration scheme.

With a good case and an competent lawyer, possibly the lifetime probation can be attacked or the lifetime GPS requirement. Possibly some of the residency restrictions or buffer zones can be eliminated. There are also areas that are ripe for challenges to the law.

We do have the law on our side in some instances, but nothing will ever happen if we do not challenge the law.

rewdiazepam

I plan - before each election - to write each and every person on the ballot to get their ideas on the registry. And I will not tell them my stance until I get an answer. I will also tell them that if I do not get a personalized answer I will not vote for them for sure ....

While I think it's great to get an answer from politicians on the registry, I think it might be better if 100's would sign a petition or letter from that legislator's district calling for scaling back the registry requirements-numbers count and they add to power to a movement. If that legislator sees that a majority of their constituents are calling for change, then the change could happen. Just a thought.

Advocate, I have tried that, I haven't ever gotten an answer from them yet. so what do you do then who do you vote for? can't be no one....

Personally if I had the time I'd just call them until they are all available to speak personally with me. like some horrible telemarketer, fill their voicemail with my messages...

I once spoke to a state legislator on behalf of my son. You know what he told me? He'd like to support it but he knows the state police would be all over him because they have a big say in laws passed at the state level. I personally think he was bullshitting me (not about the police having a big say, but that he'd like to support it). He projected a false sense of sympathy towards me. I have to give him credit though, a lot of people wouldn't have even pretended to care.

Please contact your representatives, even if they don't respond, even if it feels like it doesn't matter. There will never be a majority of constituents calling for the changes we would like to see, but they do pay attention to how many people contact them with opinions, so the more people contact them asking for changes to SO laws, the more they will listen. They MUST hear our opinions, even if we are the minority, because otherwise they will only ever hear the emotional rage of those who want unjust registry laws.

I contacted my federal reps about AWA reauthorization. One (a co-sponsor of the bill) didn't respond. One sent an annoying boilerplate response but abstained from voting. One sent a response that showed she sees this as a complicated issue and is paying attention to what her constituents have to say about it. I don't have any delusion that my letters are making a difference in how they vote on this bill, but it was an opportunity to let them know that not all of their constituents love the public registry, and we're aware that it's harmful and that the evidence is against it being effective. If even a fraction of the 800,000 registrants plus their family members contacted their representatives with that message, they would hear it.

I'm one of the new people here and I would like to be more involved. I'm frustrated by the lack of organized effort that people like me can join -- the existing groups and efforts don't offer much for busy and uninformed newcomers to latch on. I contact my local organization and nobody responds. I ask about making donations and nobody responds. I know why that is, I really do understand the challenges that these groups face. It's just frustrating. If groups dedicated to this cause can't mobilize the people who do want to be involved, it's going to be a really long road to making any substantial changes. Rew, you use the civil rights movement for comparison and say that nothing got done. But how much has changed for blacks since the 50s? In terms of legislation, a lot. It doesn't happen overnight but from sustained effort and organization. I really don't think it matters if it is 5 million or 15 million or 50 million, it matters how well those people organize themselves and get their message out.

To Rew's point, even during the Civil War, there was a part of the country that wanted an end to slavery: The North. I doubt I could go to a corner of the country and find any large group of people that wants to do away with the public registry. This is different than African Americans in the 1950's who were heavily involved in the entertainment industry as musicians and actors. Louis Armstrong might have had to use a different restroom but he was a revered entertainer and was an ambassador for his race. Some whites who hated blacks back then probably loved his music and in a small way could at least appreciate African American culture.

This is not to minimize at all the plight of African Americans. They have had a sense of persona non grata for over 400 or 500 years until relatively recently. Our country has treated blacks, American Indians, the Japanese and other groups shamefully over time. Racism still exists in more subtle (and not so subtle) dimensions to this day. But even during the days of slavery, some abolitionists saw blacks as human beings. I think that's very different for registrants. Unless someone is family or knows a registrant, they are not viewed as human beings. So in that sense, I see what Rew is saying. We have an upward battle.

At the same time, I don't think that means that we shouldn't continue to try!!!

Zorra, Welcome to the board

In Oklahoma a few years ago, they enacted residency restrictions in which a registrant could not live within 2,000 feet of a school, playground, park, daycare center, etc. These restrictions have been a disaster, as many registrants could find no place to live so they just failed to register, went underground and could no longer be monitored by LE---law enforcement. When the registrants could no longer be monitored, it just defeated the entire purpose of the registry.

The Tulsa Police Department put out a big campaign to get these residency restrictions either abolished or diminished. I called several legislators and visited a couple in our county who I had known for several years.

Here were the responses----

"REW, we know the residency restrictions are counterproductive and not effective, but there is no political will in the legislature right now to touch any sex offender legislation."

or

"Well, we have to be tough on crime." I heard that several times.

or

"If I support any legislation to make it easier on sex offenders, my opponent next election would point over at me and say, 'This man does not care about the safety of your children. He has sponsored legislation to make it easier for sex offenders to reoffend."

So there you go. Until the political climate changes in this country, we will have to rely on court decisions to make any major changes.

That is not to say we need to throw up our hands and give up. We have to continue educating the public and working if for no other reason than to give us a psychological lift that we are doing something.

I was released from prison in 2000 and the laws regarding sex offenders are more numerous and more restrictive than they have ever been.

If anyone thinks we have been successful changing politicians minds regarding sex offenders or the registry, then I don't know what to say.

The one area in which we have been quite successful is the Romeo & Juliet teenage offenses, but that is because parents became mad as hell when their sons were prosecuted for a R&J crime. The state was criminalizing normal teen behavior and everyone knew that was just stupid.

The R&J crimes are crimes that people can relate to. I think most everyone had sex as a teenager, many with a much younger teen. People can relate to these situations. They cannot relate to CP, child molestation, rape, or sexual assault.

I am pragmatic and realistic. I have not seen very many registrants being removed from the registry because politicians decided to abolish some of the laws or restrictions. But I have seen and read where thousands have been removed from the registry following a State Supreme Court decision.

I don't want to sound like Debbie Downer. I put a lot of work and effort in these areas to make it better for not only registrants and their families, but also inmates. If I thought it was a lost cause, I would just pack it in.

We have to continue to work, but we also have to realize that we have a much better chance of getting things changed through court decisions.

rewdiazepam

Rew I like the thought of court decisions, but at least here in Wisconsin, Judges are elected, so they fall into the same political trap that all the politicians do. If they were appointed then they would be owing a favor to someone.

I still agree that even with all those obstacles, court decisions are the best bet, because judges will do the right thing if the legal argument is sound and something they can 'hang their hat on'. It would seem in the experiences that I have had if the argument is good enough and solid enough for them to hang their hat on, many of them will do the right thing regardless of the political climate.

Well, just a (small) snarky comment: I don't think judges do the right thing because past court rulings give then an excuse (something to hang their hat on)so they do the right thing.... I think judges know that if their rulings go against established president they'll get reversed and it does not look good on their record and that's embarrassing for the judges (maybe) Just Saying, JanetM

Yup, have to agree. In the law, precedent is everything, not right or wrong. If you do something that goes against precedent, you are immediately labeled an "activist judge" and NO ONE wants to have that label attached to them.

The law is essentially a conservative institution. It does not look to grow and develop on its own. It needs prodding. The law relies on what has happened in the past, not on what is best for everyone in the present and in the future. Only when there is an egregious violation of the constitution does newly established precedent become law and that is indeed very rare. Since judges aren't supposed to let their personal views influence them, they often make rulings that they may not necessarily agree with. So yes, judges look for excuses. Excuses are convenient for judges and the easiest road for any judge is the path of least resistance which means they are going to follow established precedent.

Yes, courts do tend to follow precedents from other court decisions, but in Ohio, Maryland, and Oklahoma we have been successful with State Supreme Court decisions, which have removed thousands from the registry. I believe a challenge is also pending in Pennsylvania.

While these decisions do not have to be followed by another court, they may be considered.

One of the principles I learned tutoring and working with inmates was "success begets success." As more and more states or courts rule in our favor, the chances for more favorable legal decisions increase.

Some of the issues we face have no precedent. I have found Judges to be much more apt to deliver a fair verdict than politicians to pass fair and effective laws.

rewdiazepam

Absolutely, because judges have to at least give the appearance of impartiality. Politicians don't. So yes, I would go with the courts any day even though the odds will always be slim because of the nature of how decisions are handed down.