See, people this is what I have been harping about until I am blue in the face.
Well, not exactly blue. ha ha

This is the concept that change will have to come slowly---and at the state level. I have been saying this for most of the two years I have been on this board.

The registry is NOT going to be abolished anytime soon. Not in my lifetime and probably not in your lifetime. The public is in love with the registry, they think it keeps them safer, and the politicians will never make it any easier on registrants because their (the politicians) constituents will not allow them to.

BUT, on a state by state basis we CAN begin attacking some of the individual laws or regulations derived from the registry. If we can start knocking down some of the state laws, then the overall burden of the registry becomes more tolerable.

How do you knock down a large brick wall with a hammer? Piece by piece, brick by brick. That is what we must do.

I would like to see a campaign which prohibits a lifetime on the registry and gives a registrant the opportunity to be removed some day so he or she can better live their life.

We ARE making progress. I look at the Starkey decision in Oklahoma and the Williams decision in Ohio. Those two cases would have never happened five or six years ago.

Trust me, there are other Starkey cases out there. We just have to find the right case and get it in front of the right court.

Another thing I have said is that any gains we make will have to be through the courts. The politicians will not just decide some day to "be fair" or "to give registrants a break" out of the goodness of their heart or because they have somehow turned into a humanitarian.

Court decisions are something that bypasses the politicians and takes the regulations out of their hands. In Oklahoma, in the Starkey decision, within one day of the decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the DOC posted a message on their sex offender registry site alerting registrants who had been affected by that decision that they would be removed without a court order.

The knew they were whipped because they were unable to bypass the Supreme Court decision. So, 51 weeks later I was removed along with over 3,000 other registrants.

How much hope should we have??? We should have a LOT of hope---and court decisions like this one, the Starkey case, and the Williams case in Ohio are tangible proof that we are making progress. These decisions were not dreams of wishful thinking----they were real and will affect registrants and the legislature cannot easily do an end around these laws by word smithing a new piece of legislation that bypasses the court's decision.

Judges are now seeing the registry and its aftermath in a different light than they did a few years ago.

Ha Ha Ha, when you read the article, look at the comments. LOL, the "touch on crime" people, the "know it alls," the "throw the book at them" people are having a hissy fit. Ha ha I love it.

We just have to keep educating, keep fighting, and never lose faith or hope. The registration process is a lot like life in general. It is a process of small battles and skirmishes. Some we win, some we lose. But the goal is to win the war.

Let's win the war.

rewdiazepam

I could not of said it better

please let it be sooner than later

The other thing that I'm noticing is that while the judges may be voting for the registry or parts of it in their decisions they are also acknowledging and writing about the downfalls, shortcomings and lack of any effect they have. So they know the system doesn't work but just haven't voted that way........yet.

The dissenting vote in The Alaska case stated all the problems that could happen with the registry. Now they have. When it goes before SCOTUS again, and it will, that will be the final nail. I probably won't live to see it. But, it will happen.

rew,
I was afraid you turned into a smurf!

Link to the Alaska case?

Here is the case.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-729.ZS.html
The dissenting opinions are the most telling.

Coolrich,

I have been called a lot of things-----Radical REW, a motivational speaker, a life coach, and a fool. I guess I am all that rolled into one. ha ha

rewdiazepam

rew,
But a Smurf???? They make crappy movies!! How about Violet Beauregarde from Willie Wonka?

ok rew how do we start one law at a time in our state .I don't know how to write the governors , have said my say in past and governor don't care my opinion , hmmm, the Halloween or Christmas law rule to registrants seem to be wrong many families are affected by it , freedom of religion . or what ever peple believe in practicing , I would like to be able to go to a Christmas singing concert somewhere someday Christmas time as family , how would I address this : or those who have families who celebrate Halloween or easter , their children are jeapordized too , or someday want to go to some gospel singing concert like mercy me etc they have them come here to ten n and we cant go ,:( give us suggestions please how to do this state level , one day I hope to see this unjust registry junk gone , hope one day before my time is up or my husband , one day of freedom would be a GREAT BLESSING ! even , I want more u know .id like to see our son be able to experience freedom and enjoy life and SMILE not be bored .

thanks for any advice , its appreciated

Thanks coolrich for the link, maybe I'm just tired and/or confused but I'm seeing the wording as for the registry. I'll have to dissect it more and post later.

Coolrich,

Hell, I will be a smurf---and a proud one at that--- 365 days a year if we can lessen the burden that the registry imposes on some of these people!!!

rewdiazepam

Coolrich,

You said that the constitutionality of the registry will come before the Supreme Court of the United States someday, and when it does, that we will win.

Any reasonable man----the operative word being "reasonable"---would think that. I cannot imagine anyone who can say that the registry is not now punitive....

BUT, I have to tell you, Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas scare the hell out of me.

Alito is the devil in disguise. Being a former federal prosecutor he almost always sides in with the government. Roberts is the judge that argued the case for the government---and against the sex offenders--- in the 2003 Supreme Court decision, Smith vs Doe. Scalia is nuts and Clarence Thomas will usually vote the same as Scalia.

So, I am not as confident as some. Those four conservative justices do scare me.

rewdiazepam

Hurtingfamily,

I don't want to get into too much advocacy on the board as this is a support forum, so I will sent you a PM.

rewdiazepam