Yea, I should have been more clear. There will be criteria for joining the community, but it will absolutely not be based solely on the person's charge. That's what the federal government does when classifying offenders like myself, and I will never do the same to others. Instead, each person's case would be evaluated individually, with circumstances and context taken into full account.

I'll use myself as an example: I was convicted of rape, but the girl in question admitted in court that she had been dishonest and that she had, quite literally, seduced me (when asked in court how the sexual contact came about, she admitted that we were talking when she kissed me and started rubbing my crotch.) So, in a case like mine, if we were to go solely on the charge that I was convicted of, I would be disqualified, due to rape being considered a violent crime. However, by evaluating each person's case individually, we would be able to look at the circumstances and context of my case, and make the determination that I pose no threat to the community.

Does that make more sense?

Let me explain why you will have problems if the criteria is only the conviction of record.

I read your introduction just a few minutes ago. Your charge, even though it was not forcible rape, was not statutory rape, but rape. So you do not plan to allow anyone in the community with a rape charge when you have one yourself??

Do you plan to read everyone's case files to determine if they should have indeed been charged with rape or that they were overcharged as you were?? If the criterion is no rapists or child molesters, will the criteria depend on the actual circumstances of the crime or the crime as recognized by the courts??

And what about CP offenders? Most people will claim that they have a victim. Are they not qualified?

Do you see the problem you will run into if you start excluding certain offenders??

If you exclude every offender that had a victim, there will not be many eligible offenders for the community to support itself.

But, as I said, it would be up to the community to make the rules and exclude who they wanted to.

rewdiazepam

Basically, the only offenders that would be disqualified are those who have a legitimate mental illness that has resulted in true abuse. Please understand that the reason for disqualifying these people is NOT out of judgement, as I do believe that those individuals have a right to receive treatment and work towards true rehabilitation. Rather, it is simply because neither I, nor anyone else who is involved in this project so far is qualified to run a "rehabilitation" type community.

jc85,

Yes, your last post makes sense. If you will look at the time stamp of my last post and your post, the time stamps are identical, 3:26 pm. You answered my concern at the same time I entered my post above.

Then I suppose you will have to have a committee who evaluates each case before allowing those offenders to live in the community. Since it is the people's community, then I would not have a problem with the committee. In fact, the committe would be a good idea.

That makes more sense.

rewdiazepam

rediazepam,

Exactly. My current partner and I are still fleshing out all of the details (this project is still in its infancy, and we won't be breaking ground until May, 2018,) but the basic idea is that there will be a board of directors who handle the administrative aspects of the operation, but with all decisions about new residents, new projects, etc being decided by the entire community, via voting.

I guess it really comes down to how you define dangerous and violent predators. You said, "individuals and their families who are not dangerous or violent predators, but are on the list due to unfortunate circumstances and draconian laws."

Whose definition are we taking on violent? Someone could say since you are tier 3 you are violent. Are we taking the states at their word with every offender that they classified everyone correctly? I wouldn't do that if I were you.

In my situation I was a child who abused another child. I was a young teenager at the time, the crime was not rape, but still a contact crime. It was reported to the police after I wasn't a minor any more. They refused to charge me as a juvenile. They refused to have a lesser charge to make it a non registrable offense even though that outcome was supported by the victim.

The arresting officer who I had known me when I was younger had been a police officer for 15 years at that time and he told me that even 5 years ago they would never have charged this as a felony. My lawyer thought it was insane that the DA refused to budge and make it a non-registrable offense. I was given probation and had to register and that was that.

I have moved on with my life. I'm married, have a fairly decent job that keeps me above the median income line, and we have a house and live in a state with reasonable SO laws. I completed therapy, I completed probation, and I haven't had so much as a parking ticket since my arrest a long time ago yet I don't meet the criteria to live in this community.

Oh well it's the communities loss, I'm the best at charades and play a mean game of pictionary, don't even get me started on parcheesi -- you don't know what you are missing lol.

I myself am behind his idea of trying to establish a community of some people that are in the same situation as him and yes he would be required by laws not to have another offender around him that is still on paper. And I could also even if wrongly convicted could understand not wanting someone that is considered a "repeat offender or a Predator" It isn't saying anyone is better than the other it just wouldn't want LE looking even harder than need be at everyone and causing more trouble for everyone. I might be the type person that tries to see the best in everyone. But this is what I am hearing JC85 saying, I have been known to misunderstand things many times before but this is what I am hearing. And thats the way I understand it. While as mentioned before am not capable of doing the labor it takes in order to make this happen I would jump on the bandwagon if I could handle them style winters AND could handle the labor aspect of it all or had the smarts to keep up with it all. I do wish him much luck in achieving this if this is his dreams

Ok just saw your post now too lol. Makes more sense now.

Independent, please see my first reply to rewdiazepam's same concerns, above. We will absolutely be evaluating every case on an individual basis and taking context and circumstances into account. It sounds to me like you would most likely qualify.

Sorry for the confusion, everyone. I knew what I was talking about in my own head, but the way that I worded it made it difficult for others to understand exactly what I meant.

Hummm....Just how will the Rules in your community define (and presumably refuse) those with "a legitimate mental illness" that resulted in 'true' abuse?" Sounds kind of like 'Once a sex Offender always a sex-crazed child attracted Sex Offender"....but at least your community will be nice enough to allow "those people" with 'real victims' to Try .......just not in your SO community...maybe they could try to change their bad-SO label while living under a bridge somewhere or maybe in Civil Comment' prisons ? Sorry. I know I do sound a little snide here but what the hay? Might as well laugh as cry?

You do not Step-up by Stepping-On other people. It does not make you the "better Person" That is precisely the reason Haters label us ALL horrible in order to leverage themselves Above all the "horrible people" like all of us.

Janet, if you would like to have a civil, polite discussion about this, I would be more than happy to do so. However, so far on this thread, every post of yours has contained overt sarcasm, snide remarks, and condescension, and I will not engage in it.

I take it I would be one of those persons "Excluded" from you Community then? Not because I am a Sex Offender or because I have created any "real victims" but because you don't think I am "polite" enough in expressing my opinions to suit you so you have labeled me "sarcastic" and snide" and say you will not enge with me in "Discussion""? Geeze....

I see where Janet is coming from, what if JC85 someone said that the community should only be for people not on the registry anymore. Because if you have a community with 10 RSOs all living in the same area or property you are much more likely to attract a police presence.

Police or CPS

Janet, again, I will not engage in petty sarcasm and snideness, which you have once again exhibited in your most recent reply. You obviously are not interested in having an open, civil discussion about this, but rather are content to be sarcastic, twist people's words, make accusations, and be all around unpleasant. This is the last time that I will be replying to you on this thread.

Independent, those people would be overruled by our Charter and Constitution, which will lay out specifically what the purpose of the community is and how decisions and determinations are to be made.