As many people as possible should be on the registry. The only way these laws are going to start turning around is if it effects more and more people.

Nak,

You are exactly right and it is what I have been saying for a long time.

Barring a major court decision, we will probably not see major changes for many years; if there are reforms in the sex offender laws, it will be a very slow process.

There may be positive changes at the state level as we have seen in Oklahoma, Ohio, and Maryland; but any changes on the federal level will not happen any time soon. And most of those state level changes have come by way of court decisions.

We can advocate and educate all we want---and we need to continue to do so---but until more families get a taste of this sex offender nonsense, not much will change.

You will notice that at one time the big excuse for all these laws and regulations was that the recidivism rate was very high and that most all sex offenders would re-offend.

But now that has pretty much been debunked. If the high recidivism rate was what kept fueling these laws, then we should be seeing fewer and fewer laws regarding sex offenders.

Has that happened? No, the high recidivism rate was just one of many excuses that were used to keep passing these laws.

So we have educated the public on the recidivism rate and it did not change a thing.

And we cannot depend on the legislators or the general public to have a change of heart when they learn of our struggles. They are not going to think, "Gee whiz, we have been so unfair to those on the registry. Maybe it is time to give them a break." That will not happen.

Nobody, especially lawmakers, will ever feel sorry for a registrant or his family. Much of the general public is "willfully ignorant" when it comes to sex offender legislation and their bias will not allow them to be educated.

But if they or one of their loved ones ever experience the registry and all the sex offender legislation that goes with being on the registry, they will receive the best education of all----experience. When enough families are affected, there will be change and not until then. That will be the tipping point, the watershed moment.

I don't know how many times I have heard a mother, wife, or family member say, "At one time I wanted all sex offenders in prison for the rest of their lives as I was sure they were all really bad and dangerous individuals; but now my eyes have been opened and I see what a mess it is." A few of my fellow board members have probably had the same sentiment at one time.

We are all in this together and despite any differences we might have with one another, support from each other is more important than ever.

We have to just keep plugging on with the realization that someday the laws will change for the better.

rewdiazepam

they don't care that they are making 1,000's of people and children victims who are totally innocent of 'sex offenses'. . but because they are simply relatives or associated with a registered offender.

A couple of more things to add to my earlier post on this thread.

As I mentioned, the purported high recidivism rate was one excuse the lawmakers used to keep passing these laws. The general public believed in the myth that sex offenders are most likely to re-offend and the politicians ran with it.

In fact, as you read the state statutes of many state laws regarding registrants, the first few paragraphs read something like this----"Due to the likelihood that sex offenders are likely to re-offend and in order to protect the public, such and such law must be passed."

In fact, here is the first few lines in the text of the Oklahoma statutes that deals with sex offender legislation------

"""""The Legislature finds that sex offenders who commit other predatory acts against children and persons who prey on others as a result of mental illness pose a high risk of re-offending after release from custody."""

Now that the "high risk of re-offending" has been debunked, why are more laws being passed?

Another reason most lawmakers will give for the passage of so many restrictions for sex offenders and the need for the registry is that "children are abused." Yes, sometimes that is the case.

But if a guy takes a photo of his teenage girlfriend coming out of the shower with only a towel around her waist and her breasts exposed----and both teens think it is hilarious-----as kids are prone to do----where is any abuse there? Both are just horsing around and doing silly things that we all as teens have probably done at one time or another.

So in this instance, there is no abuse. Why are we trying to criminalize such behavior between teens?

Why does the state threaten to charge one of them and place them on the sex offender registry? I have seen cases where they wanted to charge the young man with production of child pornography for taking the picture and charge either one of the teens for distribution if they send the photo over cell phone to one of their friends.

I don't think I have spiraled downward to the level of "stupid" yet. All these excuses of why the registry is needed or why so many restrictive laws are passed regarding sex offenders is just that----excuses. It is an excuse to pass more laws so some "tough on crime" politician can win election and re-election until he becomes a lifetime politician.

This situation I just described is not pretty, but it is realistic.

rewdiazepam

You must also consider that adding more people to a registry is a "Cash-Cow. as they charge each registrant "Book Keeping" charges.

Crime pays....Pays well....

Crime doesn't pay that well. It was annoying paying the book keeping fees and it can be very bad for people living on limited income. However in the grand scheme of things the policies are not put in place to generate revenue. Derek said on one of his videos that the state of Ohio pays a company 50,000 a year to manage the registry. He called it big business. I'm sorry, 50,000 is a lot of money to me, but it isn't big business.

When I was on probation I had the option of seeing 10 different "approved" polygraphers. None of those polygraphers were rich, they were jerks, but definitely not rich. I think everyone one of them I ever saw was a retired cop doing it as a part time gig to make a little extra money. The 150 I paid for my poly was a lot to me at the time, but it wasnt big business.

Now if you want to say private prisons are big business, then no one in their right mind could disagree with you. It is deplorable what they do in private prisons and the level of care they provide. They don't care about making people better they only care about the bottom line. In fact it's in their financial interests to not help people get better so that when they get out they come right back! This is a racket, and it stinks to high heaven and everyone knows it.

What they are doing specifically for sex offenders is their "best" attempt at trying to do what they think is the "best" way to monitor offenders and protect the public. It isn't based on research and it isn't well thought out, but I don't think we can say it is financially driven. These idiots in our government legitimately think they are protecting the public with their bills. They think what they are doing is the only way to do that, I just wish they would listen to criminologists and academics.

They charge me $150/year in SC to be on the registry. I'm a computer programer and I know what it takes to maintain databases and it's no where near $150/person. Probation is $20/week. (I have not been asked to take a poly in SC...)

Even the quarterly sheriff visits are not and additional burden as they are traveling the routes regardless. Whenever anyone gets arrested here within a couple hours they are on the news in shiny brand new orange jumpsuits. Chain gangs on the roadways are a common sight. Once these charges and perks are in place there is no way they will ever be reversed... In fact, they are always looking for more ways to increase that revenue and use of prison labor. I've been here a little over 4 years and I've seen 5 sheriffs convicted of illegally using prison labor, bribery and fraud.

I didn't say anyone was getting rich but crime does pay the state FROM the offender. Here they strive to make it as neutral or as profitable as they can from the states point of view. There are always indigents. That only raises the bar for those who can pay.

So the more people they put on registries does become a revenue stream as it doesn't take a rocket scientists to say "Hey... Lets jump the fees on these folks....To pay for them being an extra burden on us.."

That's what I mean when I say crime pays...

The higher they make the fees the more they hurt their own case that it is regulatory and not punishment. You said it yourself it doesn't take much to regulate it.

My point is yes, they may make some money but it doesn't fall under the label of big business unless you are talking private prisons. Them making some money is not the reason they are being insane with the laws.

Don't get me wrong it's a slap to the face when I had to pay the fees and they never even visited once one year. I wrote to them on my check the easiest 100 bucks you guys have ever made. I got visits the next 2 years.

I guess my overall point is the fees are ancillary and are do not mean much to the big picture. If the SCOTUS all of the sudden banned all states from taking any fees from RSOs claiming all fees even regulatory fees were punishment, it still wouldn't stop those people from doing exactly what they are doing. They would move something around in the budget because in the grand scheme it's not much money. We are their political cash cow for the politicians. They get to be tough on sex offenders and not cost much money for the state to do it.

I think the truth lies in that there are aspects of the registry and is ever farther reaching "arms" that ARE big revenue earners but on the same token I think there are aspects of it that cost the taxpayers an enormous amount of money. I think the same could be said for the injustice system as a whole. I have
heard those use the taxpayer cost as an advocacy tool but I have also heard the making money side as an advocacy tool - so I think the truth lies somewhere in between. There are supporting numbers on both sides. I know they got my life savings!

I do agree (and I have said this many times also) that although it breaks my heart the truth is that as more people have to go through this hell the closer we get to a revolution of sorts - there is strength in numbers and power is education. We all know that once this occurred in our lives we became educated real quick! I have already had the experience of a person that I talked with at length about what happened to my son and specifically remember telling this person that more and more this hell is going to touch more peoples lives - less than 2 years later her son was arrested in a sting. The person that was my boss at the time about a year later told me her nephew in MA was arrested for CP. She also told me he did not have to be on the registry in MA? Not sure why ...

@Independent The fees we pay may not make that much difference to the big picture but don't forget every person added to the registry for a State means they are entitled to just that much more federal grant money to maintain the registry. That amount can be as much as 10% of whatever they receive in Justice Assistance Grants which means we're now talking about millions of dollars. So you pay 100 bucks which in reality covers the costs of maintaining the registry but the State gets a 1000 bucks in grant money to cover the cost of maintaining your information on the registry. I'm not saying my numbers are exact here but you get the idea.

So my question is this, of the SCOTUS said taking any money from RSOs was now considered punishment and not part of a regulatory scheme, would we still be on the registry or not? The answer is clearl yes, the money is there but it is ancillary. If that is the case I don't understand why we are talking about it. It is not what is keeping us inprisoned.

It also adds to the felon list... which means all these people can't vote. I think that's a big part of it as well. Funny when I take my son to probation office there's a big sign there that tells you to register to vote. But no one can!

Everyone in SC who is on the registry gets a visit 4 time/year by a sheriff deputy to verify where you're living. So if adding more crimes to the registry would they also get the same check ups?

The sheriffs are going to turn into a very large baby sitting entity!

That is why I just love it that my son can still vote Nak - he can also own weapons! lol I always say he is the politicians worst nightmare! lol