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.
Also, I want to assure everyone that we do, in fact, need to continue to educate the public regarding the registry and sex offenses with the hope that education will take hold and more people will clamor for the abolition of the registry. This education campaign should continue without ceasing.
Nor do I want to give the opinion that we should completely ignore any of these three arguments. I am saying though, that some of the arguments will give us more results than others.
I agree with Independent on most of his points.
The first argument----that the registry is unfair to the registrants is absolutely the worst argument on which we could concentrate our efforts. I am in wholehearted agreement that the registry is fundamentally unfair and, in a perfect world with perfect people, it should be one of the best arguments. Unfortunately our world is far from perfect and consists of people with long held biases and people who get great joy out of stomping on other people when they are down and out as many registrants are.
Pollyanna was put to rest long ago.
Nobody---nobody, except the registrant and his family---will EVER feel any compassion for a sex offender. Nobody will ever start to feel sorry for us, someday soon decide to have a heart and say, "Gee, we have been passing so many unfair laws for registrants that it is time to give them a break. Let's try to add some fairness here."
Given the political climate of society, this argument will never be very effective. Maybe this argument will be effective decades from now, but not in my lifetime, your lifetime, or your grandchildren's lifetime.
The emotional bias that forms in people's minds when they think of the word "child" in the same sentence as the word "sex" is far too strong for anyone to see anything but hate and indifference toward registrants. No amount of appealing to their fairness or humanity will overcome the emotion these crimes create. It just can't and it won't.
The 24/7 cable news media has ramped up the negative emotions in the public for such a long time----along with well known myths spoken as the truth----and have scared the hell out of mothers and families; it is just too much for us to overcome at this time.
Maybe someday, but not now. This first argument will go nowhere, even though in a country that prides itself on freedom and democracy, it should be a sound argument.
One example of this lack of common sense is that at one time the main reason for the severity and number of sex offender crimes and regulations was that the recidivism rate was very high and all offenders were sure to re-offend. But we have put a lot of those concerns to rest by citing studies showing that sex offenders have a very low re-offense rate.
You would think that if the recidivism rate was the impetus for these laws, by showing that the recidivism rate is very low it would stop some of these laws from being enacted. Is that what happened? No it is not. More laws than ever are being enacted by the lawmakers. That tells me that the registry and its laws are fueled by emotion; appealing to the politicians and the public for fairness---and common sense----is just not the path we will find successful.
Now that the recidivism excuse for passing these laws has been dampened, they will just look for other reasons to pass these laws.
These laws are political animals and the lawmakers have found a sure fire way to get re-elected every term by appearing "tough on crime." They are not likely to abandon something which has always worked for them as the only figure they care about is the 51% needed to get re-elected.
The only situation in which the unfair treatment for registrants has any merit is when a court case is decided in our favor, with either an ex post facto issue or some other issue. But the general public has little to do with court decisions.
Independent, you said, "......, 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."
Are you sure? If so, you have more faith in Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy than I do. Do you remember the Citizens United Supreme Court decision? Commons sense tells me that the SCOTUS should overturn the registry, but I am not confident at all. Conservatives on the courts scare the living hell out of me.
Samuel Alito was a former federal prosecutor, John Roberts was the lead counsel for the government against the sex offenders in the landmark 2003 decision in which the registry was considered constitutional by the SCOTUS---Supreme Court of the United States. Scalia is a nut and a stickler for law and order and Clarence Thomas almost always votes the way Scalia does. That leaves Kennedy who has been known to embrace Conservative issues, so .................
The second argument is much better than the first, but the emotional appeal against offenders will still be so great that I do not think it will be very effective. The argument that the family and especially the CHILDREN are punished by these laws and have done nothing to deserve this punishment except to love and stand by the offender is a powerful argument, but again, only in a perfect world.
Most people, I am afraid, will acknowledge that the family is unfairly punished but they will counter with the fact that if the wife does not like the situation, she should take the kids and leave the offender.
Politicians claim how much they care about the children in this country. They use catchy phrases such as "for the children" and "if it saves one child it will be worth it," when they want to pass laws against sex offenders that will win them more appeal from a frightened populace or when they want laws passed that abridges our civil rights or interferes with our privacy.
But they don't really care about the children. If they did, instead of concentrating on moral issues such as abortion, gay rights, and not allowing gay marriage, they would be passing legislation in this country which would make it better for all the kids in the country. They would pass bills for better education for our children, better health care for the children of poor families, and laws that would make our society a better place for our little ones. But they don't do this. The "for the children" mantra is just used as a trump card to further their agenda..
Regarding the third argument made by Independent, I agree with part of it and do not necessarily agree with it all.
The public could not care less about whether an offender reintegrates back into society. Many people wish the registrants would stay in prison and rot, so there is still no compassion.
Where we can make some headway is if we argue that the registry is ineffective at protecting the public and an expense that could be better used somewhere else----perhaps by educating the children--- to make the children safer.
We need to show the public that we, too, hate the abuse of children, and that we are concerned with the problem. We need to show the public that we are more humanitarians than sex offenders. We need to show the public a different image of their idea of a sex offender.
We need to show them that we are on their side with this issue of child sexual abuse and are willing to work to helping the problem, that we hate child abuse as much as they do.
When the public views us as more an ally in the fight against sex crimes and that our goal is to protect the public, we will be better served in this fight.
Right or wrong, this is what I think. Each one of the previous posters had some good points, but I think argument number one is just futile and argument number three would be much more effective.
rewdiazepam
You said, " I still vigorously disagree - not that number 3 is not a good argument but I disagree with discounting the others as less valid."
Advocate, I said several times that ALL the arguments have validity and in a couple of instances I said that the argument made common sense and was a powerful argument.
But just because an argument has validity does not mean it is the best argument for us to concentrate our efforts on or it is the most favorable argument for us to concentrate on.
As far as discounting the other arguments in favor of argument three, I did not say we should. In fact, I said, " Nor do I want to give the opinion that we should completely ignore any of these three arguments. I am saying though, that some of the arguments will give us more results than others."
Advocate, you said, " Your said that "Nobody---nobody, except the registrant and his family---will EVER feel any compassion for a sex offender" may be true now but it will not always be so.
I used the word "ever" in that sentence----and in doing so, I jumped the gun by using the word "ever" as an absolute------but further on down my post, I said, " Maybe this argument---referring to argument number one--- will be effective decades from now, but not in my lifetime, your lifetime, or your grandchildren's lifetime.
Advocate, you said, " ......also I have seen things in my life time become more and more accepted by society that at one time were considered the dregs of life - marijuana for example."
It is difficult for me to equate raping a minor with marijuana. One reason people cannot accept sex offenses is that they cannot ever imagine themselves committing a serious sex offense. It is so out of the norm for many people and that is why they can never accept it. Not so with marijuana.
Many people have already used marijuana in their youth and they can more easily understand why someone would use Marijuana that they can understand why someone would molest a child or download a bunch of CP.
People can much easier identify with marijuana use than they can with your typical sex offense.
I don't think sex offenses will ever "be accepted"-----as you said----in society.
Advocate, I said, "I know that my sons friends (now 20 somethings) know the truth about the registry and as time goes on and they become the 30 and 40 somethings of our country they will know the truth and have opinions that lean that way."
Yes, I agree with you there, but do you think that these friends will speak out against the registry in any meaningful manner? Will they voice their opinion to others that don't agree with them?
I don't think a lot of people will go to bat for us even though they disagree with the registry.
Advocate, you said, " The problem is if we drop those arguments (1 and 2) from our rhetoric we are reducing their validity and in a sense agreeing with the dehumanizing tactics that are levied on RSOs."
Refer to my post above and my original post. At no time did I advocate dropping arguments one and two.
Nobody---especially me---are agreeing with the dehumanizing tactics used against registrants. I agree with all the facts of all three arguments and they are all valid, but some of the arguments will give us more mileage in our fight against these laws.
What is valid may not be as effective as the other arguments.
Advocate, you said, "...... but I do not think any should be left out."
I never said that. In fact, I said all three were valid and that " Also, I want to assure everyone that we do, in fact, need to continue to educate the public regarding the registry and sex offenses with the hope that education will take hold and more people will clamor for the abolition of the registry. This education campaign should continue without ceasing."
I think some of the problem on this threat is a problem of semantics. But as I said earlier, I respect all the opinions on this board and we are all one unified body to fight this mess.
rewdiazepam
1) Use #1 for the courts as it relies upon the legality of these laws which in time will have to be the end to all of this.
2) Use #2 for when each of us is speaking to people who know us personally - family, friends, neighbors, church members, coworkers, etc.
3) And use #3 when we are speaking to the public; such as the media.
Of course, I do think that each of the other two points in any given situation should be used as an ancillary to the main point when appropriate but not at the expense of the main point that should be used in that situation.
And advocate, I agree with what you said, " I have seen things in my life time become more and more accepted by society that at one time were considered the dregs of life - marijuana for example. Something that was considered by the majority of the population to be abhorrent is now legal in the capitol city of our country"
But that doesn't mean rights for RSOs is our best or even a decent argument with the general public at this moment.
And advocate Rew and I know you aren't comparing marijuana laws to rape but in the minds of the general public that is what they hear when the hear sex offender registry.
I also agree with thehopeful that each argument is better suited for different arenas. This is a very, very good point! Thank you thehopeful for providing clarity for what I was trying to say!
Advocate, I am not saying to give up on any argument, I'm just trying to get more people to focus on what will get us the most bang for our buck in each areas we are in. I understand the righteous indignation of having my rights trampled on in a supposedly free country. I experience it everyday. I have lost jobs, friends, and a couple romantic interests all because I committed a crime as a child. But that indignation does not play well with the media and the general public. We need to temper that anger we all feel, then turn that into something that will be beneficial for society and in turn us.
You compared the registry to gay marriage. I am not an expert on the history of gay rights, but the path they took to get where they are today was a long process. They worked for partner rights for insurance first, then civil unions. It took them a long time to get where they are today to getting gay marriage legalized. They didn't put their head in the sand and say gay marriage or bust, they worked for small incremental steps to improve the lifestyle of all in the LGBT community.
Some are upset that CARSOL advocates for a tiered registry, saying they want the state to be AWA compliant. I see Janice trying to help registrants to be able to get off the registry. Right now, only a very few are able to be removed, with a COR. But with a tired registry hundreds, if not thousands can be removed with a tired registry. It's not perfect, but it's a step towards the greater goal.
We may see the while thing crash in our lifetime, if the registry is brought before the US Supreme Court. If it's heard again, they won't be able to deny that it's punitive.
My oldest would be a good example. He's19, his dad took a plea, so he could serve a short sentence, and be there for his kids. My son could tell you what that's meant to him and in our case, what living in a relatively sane state has meant: normalcy. Other than during probation, our family life hasn't changed much. We can go to parks, and live in our home etc. The major issue has been steady employment but we're doing ok. My son graduated, is working pt and will be starting classes in the fall.
Sadly, it seems, his story is a rarity, what horror stories will other young adults have to share? Eventually, they'll be old enough to do so
Also I think people don't truly care about your children, they only care about THEIR children. It's a terrible thing to say, but true nonetheless. When they say, "What about the children?!?" they really mean what about their children or people related to them. I think it's a biological imperative to help the people in your gene pool to survive and live to reproduce. I think the politicians are being genuine when they say, "What about the children?!?" But are incredibly naive about it. I'm also not saying people cannot care for other children besides their own, just saying when push comes to shove, their own children win out every time.
Just look at residency restrictions as an example. People are okay with 3,000 foot residency restrictions to effectively ban offenders from their town. They don't care at all what happens to that offender as long as they aren't in their town. They do not care if it makes the offender more likely to commit another crime. Or make him homeless and tougher to track by law enforcement. They just "know" it protects their child and they have peace of mind.
While I don't have the capacity or amazing way of explaining myself clearly like most of you all do here, I will give my thoughts. (Please also forgive the typos, I'm on my phone)
As a victim of sexual assault as a child resulting in child pornography of myself and later rape as a teenager, I often get upset reading about people who have done such things crying about the injustices they receive. I don't know what happened to my childhood abuser nor my rapist, but I do know my rapist did the same to two other girls. Honestly it makes my gut twist to think they could be continuing this pattern. I have searched my rapists name and he isn't anywhere.
I know the registry wouldn't have protected me. I have to live my life with this horrible weight on me. I panic when I even think some one is taking my picture. I panic sometimes while being intimate. I wake up choking thinking its happening again. My rape happened 16 years ago but some days its like it was yesterday. Honestly, why should any victim or parent care if a molester or rapist is having problems living when I am unable to?
So, I understand why people feel the need to have this. I understand why people get angry.
I also understand both sides. I have for years. I am not a vindictive person nor a revenge seeker. I've seen two falsely accoused personally. My very best friend was charged with CP and my other friend rape.
I don't think people should be on the registry for pissing behind a tree. This whole 18 y/o having sex with a 16 y/o is BS as well.
But when I see some one with multiple charges, I don't feel sorry. They can chew rocks.
Now I'm living with a sex offender, who knowingly watched underaged have sex. Now I'm living in both hells. I feel like I'm fighting for both sides. I don't get sympathy from either, I just get ridicule. I don't want sympatjy, just understanding.
I know in an idealistic world ecerything is fair. I know that will never happen.
After that my veiws on the registry are: People who are a true danger (have molested or raped multiple times) If law enforcement feels the need to have a list, it shouldn't be entirely public. People don't need to know. Parents need to be responsible and watch their kids and have their kids trust them...and parents should talk to their kids about these things. All the signs things were happening to me were there, just no one noticed. Nothing could have prevented my rape.
I hope I didn't sound completely idiodic.
My health hasn't been the best and a "friend" of mine backstabbed me. I'm exhausted.
I agree a LE only registry would be understandable. I disagree with a public one and vehemently disagree with
restrictions as they are mainly based on the stranger danger myth. If a person is that dangerous, they should be locked up somewhere.
But we veer off course. KnowNot and Faeryedark, since you both live both sides what do you think is the best course of action to make all if this work for everyone?
I honestly don't know what would work for everyone. There will always be the falsely charged. There will always be pressure from the people who have no idea what they are talking about.
The only thing I persinally see working is to get rid of the registry. Living restrictions should also be gone. Law enforcement should be aware of only certain people who have done the worst. If you do it again, then your punishment should be higher. However, the little girl in me seeking revenge screams just kill them.
The only problem with anything happening is who is going to decide who is dangerous? In this decision who is going to be in who's pocket? Everything is so corrupt, everyone suffers.