Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
I have read through a lot of the forum recently and looked at the arguments people made against the registry. I don't think there are any bad arguments, I think the registry is fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional. However, I do believe we have an argument that tops all of them. I am going to lay the three arguments out and explain why one is superior to the others
1) The registry is unfair for registrants: The argument goes something like this, it's unfair that after paying our debt to society we have to continue paying for it. And not for the crime we have committed and paid our debt for, but for a future possible crime we most likely won't commit (stats vary but the overall recidivism rate is the lowest of all criminals besides murderers).
If you know a little about the law you would say this is also an ex post facto violation. That they have added more restrictions to RSOs after they have already committed their crime. The way the courts get around ex post facto is by saying the registry is a civil regulatory scheme, but eventually with all ever increasing restrictions placed on offenders the Supreme Court is going to have to change their mind on the "civil" nature of the registry.
A lot of other arguments fall in this category like people getting on the registry for urinating or Romeo and Juliet crimes. The main idea is that the registry is unfair and unconstitutional towards RSO's.
Why this is not our best argument:
Ex post facto and fundamental fairness are clearly our best arguments in court. But it is too easily defeated with emotional appeal, "What about the children?!?" No one gives a rip about RSOs rights when it comes down to protecting their children. Politicians have engrained it in the mind of the public that more draconian laws equals more protection of children. We can't defeat this emotional appeal with fairness for sex offenders.
2) What about the families of registrants? They are suffering undue harm because of the registry, what about RSO's family children??
This is a very good attempt at fighting emotional appeal with another emotional appeal. And it is true that RSO and their families struggle with the burden the registry places on them.
Why this isn't our best argument:
I think this may be a more powerful argument the larger the registry grows, but for now there just aren't enough registrant's families to make this personal for the voting population of America.
This emotional appeal is still defeated by "What about the children?!?" I can see someone like valigator saying to women who are married to RSO's, "Why the heck are you still with him? Leave! He is a threat to your children!"
It is my opinion that society thinks more like valigator in this scenario, blaming the women for staying with their RSO, that she somehow is bringing this upon herself (couldn't be further from the truth) for either being a bad parent or for staying with him, or both. Society is also still under the naive idea idea that the registry and ever increasing draconian laws protects their children. So you couple their naïveté towards the laws and their apathy towards women who support men entrapped in them, it leads to a not so compelling case.
3) The registry is a smoke screen that points parents in the wrong direction and does not allow former offenders to reintegrate back into society.
Why this works:
This works because it is addressing the claim, "What about the children?!?"
When someone says, "What about the children?!?" We should respond with that is a great question! We are really interested and concerned with the same thing. Let me show you with evidence from the bureau of justice statistics who is most likely to sexually abuse your child. 93% of children who are sexually abused are abused by people they know and usually know quite well. The 93% are abused by parents, siblings, extended family, friends, teachers, clergy, babysitters and coaches while only 7% of children are a used by strangers. Our country is spending billions upon billions of dollars on the registry and its upkeep to stop stranger danger, how much money are they spending on stopping the rest of the 93%?
The registry also does not allow former offenders to successfully reintegrate back into society. Studies show that the registry and residency restrictions actually lead to more recidivism and not less.
The idea is we turn into the question instead of dismiss it. We become champions of the mantra 'no more victims' and we show with statistical evidence why the policies now are flawed and creating more not less victims.
1) The registry is unfair for registrants: The argument goes something like this, it's unfair that after paying our debt to society we have to continue paying for it. And not for the crime we have committed and paid our debt for, but for a future possible crime we most likely won't commit (stats vary but the overall recidivism rate is the lowest of all criminals besides murderers).
If you know a little about the law you would say this is also an ex post facto violation. That they have added more restrictions to RSOs after they have already committed their crime. The way the courts get around ex post facto is by saying the registry is a civil regulatory scheme, but eventually with all ever increasing restrictions placed on offenders the Supreme Court is going to have to change their mind on the "civil" nature of the registry.
A lot of other arguments fall in this category like people getting on the registry for urinating or Romeo and Juliet crimes. The main idea is that the registry is unfair and unconstitutional towards RSO's.
Why this is not our best argument:
Ex post facto and fundamental fairness are clearly our best arguments in court. But it is too easily defeated with emotional appeal, "What about the children?!?" No one gives a rip about RSOs rights when it comes down to protecting their children. Politicians have engrained it in the mind of the public that more draconian laws equals more protection of children. We can't defeat this emotional appeal with fairness for sex offenders.
2) What about the families of registrants? They are suffering undue harm because of the registry, what about RSO's family children??
This is a very good attempt at fighting emotional appeal with another emotional appeal. And it is true that RSO and their families struggle with the burden the registry places on them.
Why this isn't our best argument:
I think this may be a more powerful argument the larger the registry grows, but for now there just aren't enough registrant's families to make this personal for the voting population of America.
This emotional appeal is still defeated by "What about the children?!?" I can see someone like valigator saying to women who are married to RSO's, "Why the heck are you still with him? Leave! He is a threat to your children!"
It is my opinion that society thinks more like valigator in this scenario, blaming the women for staying with their RSO, that she somehow is bringing this upon herself (couldn't be further from the truth) for either being a bad parent or for staying with him, or both. Society is also still under the naive idea idea that the registry and ever increasing draconian laws protects their children. So you couple their naïveté towards the laws and their apathy towards women who support men entrapped in them, it leads to a not so compelling case.
3) The registry is a smoke screen that points parents in the wrong direction and does not allow former offenders to reintegrate back into society.
Why this works:
This works because it is addressing the claim, "What about the children?!?"
When someone says, "What about the children?!?" We should respond with that is a great question! We are really interested and concerned with the same thing. Let me show you with evidence from the bureau of justice statistics who is most likely to sexually abuse your child. 93% of children who are sexually abused are abused by people they know and usually know quite well. The 93% are abused by parents, siblings, extended family, friends, teachers, clergy, babysitters and coaches while only 7% of children are a used by strangers. Our country is spending billions upon billions of dollars on the registry and its upkeep to stop stranger danger, how much money are they spending on stopping the rest of the 93%?
The registry also does not allow former offenders to successfully reintegrate back into society. Studies show that the registry and residency restrictions actually lead to more recidivism and not less.
The idea is we turn into the question instead of dismiss it. We become champions of the mantra 'no more victims' and we show with statistical evidence why the policies now are flawed and creating more not less victims.
Yes, I'm tooting my own horn by posting this link but I'm doing more than pulling a Barry Horowitz here (kudos to anyone who gets the reference).
The reason I posted this article was the reporter asked me to summarize my opinion of the registry in 150 words or less. My response published in the article was the result.
I think it is a great exercise. How do you summarize you arguments against the registry in a mere 150 words or less?
Ex post facto and fundamental fairness are clearly our best arguments in court. But it is too easily defeated with emotional appeal, "What about the children?!?"
and what about the children of SO's being singled out, bullied and harassed? what benefit does it do anyone who is "worried or so concerned about the children" to publicly register, list and shame a mooner, streaker or someone who P's in the bushes? how in hell can anyone say that a "child" has been devastated by seeing a naked person or someone's naked ass, someone taking a P or consensual sex between teens and keep a straight face?
the emotional appeal "what about the children" can be turned right around and used against those who use that talking point!
#2) families of registrants. it's actually a given that 'women and families' don't have to stay with/together with registrants to be effected, penalized or targeted.
we have seen children bullied and traumatized simply because they are the children of SO's. we have seen spouses lose jobs. families and siblings targeted, harassed, attacked and their homes burnt. people killed simply by living at the wrong address, looking 'like' a registered SO or someone with the same name or a similar name to a registered SO.
#3) can be integrated back into #1 and bolster that argument. by targeting and enforcing a public registry parents can perceive that 'they' are off the hook because the registry controls those nasty SO's thereby they need not keep a better eye on their kids. never giving a thought about uncle john, grampa joe or cousin tom, the babysitter or daycare provider or any number of close family members or acquaintances.
In Tenn they was issuing policies for the homeless. Which can understand .but I mentioned and stressed what about rso and families made to live on street swamps .in emergencies rso are casted out separated from families. .but they say they they accept all.what a lie!..families are forced to live on street .goodwill supposed to help people with jobs etc .but you mention your a rso .they say I'm sorry can't help you .go to temp agencies they tell u I'm sorry can't help you .but before you tell them u on registry .they excited say we can use you .then after you tell them .they don't want to give you a chance .even if its been close to ten years .you been out of troubl . .the best way is pointing out this is def extra punishment and they need to change this so families can be families ...one day families can be families once again like anyone else ...