Note: "supervision" means probation or parole. As far as I am aware, there are no states that restrict offenders from having contact with each other, once they are off of supervision, whether or not they are still on the list. In fact, were they to do so, it would set a legal precedent of treating Registration as a matter of crime and punishment, which is exactly what the courts have claimed it is NOT, when throwing out ex post facto challenges.

Sounds like a great idea. I'm in PA however, and all our family and support are here, and PA is really my home. "The Mountains are calling and I must go" kind of thing. My family has been in this area since 1720.
Thankfully, other than the damned AWA, PA isn't too bad.

faeryedark, I had actually been considering PA as well, as I had heard that their laws and restrictions weren't bad.

yes it is against the law for anyone on "paper" to associate with any felon, on or off the books and that law stands in all 50 states which is sad because in all honesty we could be just as supportive living in same community as some are on this forum. I know like people like KnowNot and Rew and so many here we could become a very productive community. I think that is part of why the laws dont allow "paper" and "not paper or other paper" to get together they are afraid we get strong. Then they cant 'control' us and that is what the registry is about is 'control'

Again, to clarify, "on paper" specifically refers to supervised release, i.e. parole or probation. It does not apply to registered offenders who have completed their parole or probation.

Whether you are still On paper or Off ...a commune would have to exclude all "felons' not off paper...AND I don't know about other states but N Cali and Oregon towns where hippies once congregated in " communes"
still have signs warning people that 'communes' aren't Welcome in their town....I can just see t now...a caravan of parole officers heading out toward a commune of SO's checking papers and handcuffing and revoking while family and friends protest the unfairness involved. Anyway most big cities have "communes" for So's they are called Downtown Resident Hotels PO's like them because it simplifies the monthly "home visits" and they can have just one paddy wagon parked down in the parking lot for those the arrest and revoke and save gas and making numerous trips to the Holding Cells....
For those "Registrants" trying to get to Oregon...mostly OR says NO to Interstate Compact/ moves to their state because they already have enough SO's (at least that's what a Supervisor told me when I tried to get my 'significant other' Paroled to the state where we had lived before he was revoked and sent back to NV... I hate to sound so "negative" but come on....LOL? A commune full of SO's? (Sounds sort of like voluntary Civil Commitment?) a group of SO's on of off paper would just incite vigilantism and justify the Fears of all the Stranger Danger Haters surrounding the "SO Commune"

First, to clarify one more time: "on paper" refers specifically to those felons who are still on probation or parole. There is absolutely no law in any state that felons who have been released from prison and are NOT on probation or parole from associating, congregating, or living together.

Secondly, please note that there is a very large difference between an intentional community and a "commune." Communes generally have shared living spaces, shared income with weekly member allowances, etc. In an intentional community, you are basically setting up a small, unincorporated town, with all residents having their own homes, certain amount of property, private incomes, etc.

Finally, the existence of police and vigilante harassment are actually two reasons that an intentional community like this could be a good option for SOs; "safety in numbers," if you will. It's much harder for police and vigilantes to harass or attack an individual than it is for them to do the same in a community full of supportive people who are versed in civil rights and SO laws, and who would be willing to defend each other against vigilantism, if it came to that.

One more thing: in regards to interstate compacts keeping offenders from moving to certain states (e.g. Oregon,) again, this applies ONLY to offenders who are currently still on probation or parole. Once a person has been released from probation or parole, there is no federal or state law anywhere in the US that requires an offender to get "permission" in order to move to a different state.

Well, just write and tell us all how your (former) Sex offender "Commune"/homestead Idea works out.

Janet, have I done something to offend you? If so, please send me a message and let me know. I ask, because while I completely understand your skepticism, the amount of snideness and condescension in your replies seems totally unwarranted...

No Offense meant and noe taken.... I'm just tired of sounding like a wet blanket. (your mistaken observation of "condescension" and "snideness" nor withstanding...) Take care and do let us all know how your plan works out.

http://www.dailystrength.org/groups/families-of-sex-offenders/discussions/messages/16072890

Here is a link to someone with similar ideas that came on the board a while back. Might be someone worth talking too..

red55

This is an idea I have been toying with myself..however my husband cannot live with us until my youngest is 18 ( she is 10).. But if I decided that I was to stay with him this seems like a good idea and I can save a lot of money by then. Just to be left alone and have a quiet simple life. I looked up rules of probation and he cannot even come to my house when my oldest, his "victim" is not here because this is her resident. I will have to go to him if I want to see him when he's out. But I have been trying to plan for the future if I stay married to him.

red55: Thanks a lot for the info. I read through the thread, and it sounds like he's trying to do something like the community in Florida (i.e. a community for legitimate abusers to rehabilitate.) If this thing gets off the ground, we will only be accepting those ROs who are on the list for offenses such as statutory rape for having consensual sex with a minor and other non-violent crimes. Basically, we're trying to set up a community for people who have become victims of the RO system, not those who are on the list for having created real victims of their own.

To be clear, I'm not passing any judgement against people who don't fit this criteria, and I definitely do believe that everyone deserves a chance to rehabilitate and live their lives in peace; that's just not what we're trying to do, here.

So only "certain" sex offenders would be welcome in the community you have proposed??

I do a lot of support work, and I know some offenders who I am fairly sure were wrongfully convicted of rape or molestation. A few were falsely accused during a divorce or custody dispute. They would not be welcome, I presume.

I was wrongfully convicted and I am no longer on the registry. I am doing fine and would not be interested in your community, but I don't denounce the idea either, nor am I criticizing your with your idea.

Having said that, once you start "judging" crimes and saying one sex offender is welcome but not another, you might run into some problems. At that point, you do not really have a sex offender community; you have a community of your choosing.

I understand your point, but many guys who were convicted of molestation or rape are rehabilitated, while some who had victimless crimes have not learned their lesson.

If the criteria for entrance into the community is the nature of the crime---and nothing else is considered----I just don't know.

But it is your community and people can do what they want. I just hate when we start judging and saying "my crime is not as bad as your crime." We are all sex offenders. If we have been or are on the registry, we are all sex offenders.

Just my opinion.

rewdiazepam