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.
My husband (falsely accused) went through a trial, got a hung jury, and then took a plea. he was evaluated by and found to be the lowest risk possible (gee, duh) and is the registry with a misdemeanor. BUT he's a tier 3 because of the ADA....makes no sense. But then. what does anymore
WTH right????
any and all arguments against the registry need and should contain all 3 points.
personally i would vote for #2. What about the children?" we all know and it's been shown that the registry hurts, harms and endangers children.
1) while attention is focused on the offenders listed on the registry, so many others slip by and are hidden.
2) children of offenders are traumatized, bullied, unfriended, isolated, stigmatized, harmed, attacked
endangered by society. and that is whether the offender lives with that family or not.
3) like it or not, many, many victims still love their abusers (family members).
4) the children of offenders are are only affected by the above of emotionally, physically and mentally but
socially, educationally and financially.
if they truly are worried about the children? if they truly are out to protect/save the children? then they need to be worried and concerned about all of the children. children affected by both sides of the registry.
4)
Argument #1 is our best legal argument, but #2 and #3 make it that much stronger in court. Asking the court to take into account collateral damage is argument #2. Then asking the court to hold the governments feet to the fire for evidence based practices on how the registry protects children is #3.
I believe #2 is the strongest argument relationally. If someone knows you and you can tell them personally how it has affected your children--that's powerful! Argument #3 is also really important relationally so they can know that if they support your children THEIR children are still safe. Argument #1 is weaker relationally.
Argument #3 is our strongest when talking to the media and public because we are not shying away from the questions they ask. There is no deflecting. We say here is what the research says, we want less victims that's why we don't support the current policies because they create more victims not less. Argument 2 is good with the media too, but I do not think people will support your children until they know their children are safe. That is what #3 does. Argument #1 is weakest with the media.
They all have their place.
I'd like to know what it costs to maintain the registry, which most (who oppose and support the registry) say is at least dysfunctional and doesn't work as intended.
As the 2016 political campaign season heats up, candidates should be asked to defend the constitutionality of the registry and related laws. While most candidates won't come out in favor of more rights for sex offenders, they do like to say how they will defend the constitution. A theme that seems to be emerging in various court rulings against aspects of registry laws is that governments cannot pass laws limiting the rights of certain groups of citizens just because they happen to be in an unpopular group.
Another argument that could be made against the registry is that it is an example of "big government" run amok, and if the government can create a registry for one group, what is to prevent it from creating similar laws affecting any other group.
"Now for the Registrants "children matter" ploy. In as much as I hate to be the one to break it to these groups, the public will NEVER alter "their" right to know over offenders children. I think deep down as harsh as it may be, the public will never trump their kids for sex offenders kids. Why? Because the Public has never felt sex offenders received ENOUGH punishment. If an offender cant attend their kids soccer games, I think the public perceives that as "just punishment" it may not be rational, may not be fair, but society is never fair with what they really "want" to dole out to sex offenders. If we align that concept with the horrible headlines we read, offenders children become moot in the process. Just an observation."
.they look at the past ,but then look at the present .have you lived lawful since the offence .have you reaffended since offence you was charged with..if you was ordered mandatory counseling .had their been any booting you out?
If on probation .any violations of pro or trouble with law. Not including traffic violations . if taken polygraphs .has they been passed .jobs .support unit ...you know things been accomplished etc .truly sorry for what occurred in past and understand was wrong .taken full responsibility for it etc .
Reform it by reassessing the lives our love ones been living since the past .you know the Now should count.
After so many years .I believe they did this they'll find a lot of people has lived a productive lawful life and they aren't threats ...but just to go by a conviction of distant past .with no way of proving your life changed .and made to stay on registry your family punished .and no sec chances is wrong ..they may not want to take the registry down .but it should be reformed ..bring on a reassessment of the Present hence not past .
And if its be able to be proven in court of law as your not no longer a threat .then take them off the list .and the restrictions ..I don't know just a suggestion . other wise it be ten to twenty five years to life on registry without ever being able to prove a person can truly change and lifetime of punishment .if things don't change ..
What these people would say to your comment is that sexual abuse is such a hidden crime that most registrants go on to commit many more crimes but they go undetected by police. This argument is hogwash! People like valigator think getting put on a public registry and being under the constant eye of police and other citizens makes it easier for an offender to reoffend? I would say exactly the opposite, more eyes on the offender means it is much more likely that they will be caught if they are committing another sex crime. They don't want to admit the fact that 93% of children are abused by people they know. They'd rather focus on the 7% and then hide behind "well we sex offenses are such an under reported crime". They assume that it is sex offenders that are committing all of this under-reported crime. It's not! The reason why it's under reported is because people don't want to implicate their families and friends because of shame.
Daughter just wanted the abuse to stop. I believe there should be punishment, and what daughter asked seemed reasonable, but also wanted to ensure he got help.
Hurting: I believe there needs to be a reevaluation process every couple years for everyone on the registry. I think a tier down approach would be successful because it gives RSOs light at the end of the tunnel. Tier down from 3 to 2, then 2-1 then 1-none. Maybe after a period of 5-10 years on each tier. Something like that.