I have never understood how one can want help but then be unwilling to give others help. How one can cry out against the injustices they endure but then ignore the injustices others also endure.

I realize that folks here are dealing with sex offender regstry issues, but I guess I look at it diffferently in that whether the issues involve sex offender registration, civil commitment, or prison sex offender treatment, and the adverse effects imposed, they are all apart of the same category, e.g. sex crime laws and the adverse effects imposed.

Why is it okay for people to be angry about sex offender registration laws but then condone, by silence or indifference (in light of zero comments left on this thread), to states and the federal government kidnapping people with disabilities by imprisoning them without ever having obtained a court order to do so.

I just don't get it. But it's all good. It is what it is.

legal:
I fully agree with you. What I have seen in my 7 years of working with laws and SO issues is that people tend to focus on their specific case. There is a lot of finger pointing and "my crime is a lesser crime" type of attitude. When the whole basics is, as you have stated, unconstitutional laws. The fact that no one is realizing that the government is creating laws to institutionalize innocent people at a whim.
I can understand the mentality.....as I was one of them. My 17 year old son was falsely accused and persecuted for a crime he did not commit, so I went on a rampage to prove HIS innocence. In the process of trying to help him, it became apparent that hundreds or even thousands of people were in his shoes. People of all ages, races and gender. Whether it be rape, CP or other charges, they are being convicted left and right with no legal representation or recourse to defend themselves.
Yes, it is a MAJOR problem in this country that prosecutors and law enforcement have become so powerful, that they can accuse and convict people without evidence or facts to back the allegations.
So, I stand tall with you on your synopsis!
I would love to have the cases that went to court regarding civil committment, as in my state this summer, we are having lawmakers in a study committee looking at these laws.
Any help you can provide me would be greatly appreciated!
With respect,
RWsMom

I have been researching this stuff since 2007, in 2010 I started my little organization here in WI. I have begun trying to get in touch with each RSO here in WI, and it is a slow process. My mailings for the first 400 of them did not contain my phone number. The last one did and my response was overwhelming, I am at 6% response and climbing so far. Which is good. What I am finding though is what RWsMom is talking about. People looking to have their innocence proven, and I having to be the bearer of bad news, that that is not what this organization is about. I went about those first 3 years the same way RWsMom did, trying to come up with some way to prove the innocense of my now husband. What I learned about the law and the legal system those first three years was invaluable, but it doesn't make this job any easier.

I read the article, I even commented on it and got some responses to the comment. I will look into the WI version of a State Auditor, currently I have my hands full with my job, spring has hit on the farm so there is fencing and things to be done, I am on the phone with this kind of stuff most of my evenings, and then off to bed and back up at 4:30 am to start all over. This doesn't include spending any time with family or friends, visiting my husband or riding my horses. So I agree with you about the need but I also know that we can't do it alone, and that we need the community of family, friends, and offenders to stand behind us, be it as just a letter writer to their lawmakers about the issues that affect them or if they want to be a spokesperson and get out in front. And as time passes I am hoping to garner enough support and find a suitable case to help bring the courts into play and declare some of them punitive and unconstitutional, and of course everyone thinks their case is 'the one' for that. Again I have to be the bearer of bad news and tell them that this has NOTHING to do with innocense or guilt but about the law and the legality of the statutes that are applied.

So try not to belittle all of us, for we are doing our level best to bring about change and to bring awareness to the issues surrounding the sex offender issues..

Please understand that my second post was not ment to belittle anyone. I was merely expressing both my fustration and dissent. For me, it is discouraging that I read threads asking for help; expressing the issues, and advocating for change but only in specified limited ways, e.g. sex offender registration, and ignoring that there is a larger picture here that involves other related illegal things going on in the same subject category, e.g. sex crime laws and their adverse effects.

Civil commitment is a major issue in our county. In Missouri we had two ground breaking federal lawsuits come to head last year. One of the suits accidently uncovered the fact that a resident of civil committed has been locked away for five (5) years without the state ever obtaining the required civil commitment court order to do so - that constitutes kidnapping, false imprisonment, or at the very minimum, the state sanctioning such.

Both suits also exposed the fact that despite state officials lying to the public and to the courts that those in civil commitment receive treatment, the state has been flat out refusing to provide them any treatment and then lies to individual courts that they cannot be treated so they can keep them locked away for the rest of their lives.

The importance of these federal suits is that they are rare - very rare and the fact both courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (residents of civil commitment) is absolutely astounding. Neither of these suits were about the typical cries of "I was framed" sort of thing but rather they were about demanding the treatment the state says it gives but refuses, so they can rejoin society, and they were about exposing how sex crime laws are being applied in unconstitutional ways.

Based on email and telephone conversations I have had with senior staff of our State Auditor, they are refusing to aduit the DOC and the Dept of Mental Health sexual offender treatment center. It is a mentality existing in government that it is okay to do these things and then pretend they do not exist because society is not going to raise a stink - but all of us on this website are apart of society and need to open our arms to everyone dealing with sex crime laws and the adverse effects they have - that is where our greater strenth is at here.

In my opinion this is a support group and people should be able to post whatever thread topic they chose.

We are all in this together. But we each have our own story to tell and we should feel free to tell it in any manner we deem necessary. Thank you ladies for all the work you are doing to make changes. Just remember everyone handles this stuff differently and some people are in a deep depression. It may take some of us longer to feel comfortable to get out there and be active.

I agree DiDi923, this board is based in Support not in bringing about change... I understand that sometimes in our venting of frustrations and talking about the things that each is going through at the moment brings about those resounding quesitions of what can we do about it, etc. But that doesn't in and of itself make this board a place where planning of those things should be. It just means it frustrates us.

Legal, I don't think that people were dissin' you at all, I think that the general theme of this forum is to support and console each other when the need arises. Don't take the lack of participation in this thread as the sole indication of what people do for 'the cause' outside of this group.

Wisconsin: Thank you for your post. I am for whatever people want to say.... if it's about ways to bring about change or if it is about what a bad day they are having. There is a place here for us all!!!

legal:
I understand where you are coming from. I too get very frustrated at times. Like Wisconsin said, all too many times people want help, but don't want to take a stand.
I think it's phenomenal that both the plaintiffs won suits against civil commitment. I think the problem with getting these issues to a higher court is the costs to the registrants and families. At least, that's been what I have observed. Perhaps we should find that one good case to challenge SCOTUS and all find a way to fund it. Norm Pattis, a legal defense attorney, has been looking for that "perfect" case for years. However, the cost to hire an attorney of his caliper is probably going to be in the triple digits.
Do you have any suggestions? I'm open and all ears!
Hugs to all who have posted such good opinions on this post!

Hello everyone. I have giving my decision to leave the group a lot of thought. I came to the conclusion that the reason I had issues here was because (as others have recently posted) this IS a group for SUPPORT and not really for CHANGE. I need to respect that so as not to offend group members who really are mostly coming here to seek support.

I'd like to weigh in on this civil commitment issue.

I posted a week or so ago that I am a proponent of civil commitment, and I am. But let me preface that by saying that I DON'T support the abuse of this mechanism. I believe that every person convicted of a sexually-based crime SHOULD be evaluated by mental health "professionals" to determine their potential threat. I went through the stringent process in the State of Kansas before I was sent to the federal system, and I thought the process was excellent. I do think there needs to be mechanisms in place for those who do end up being civilly committed to allow them to be evaluated by an unbiased 3rd party at certain points in time after they receive a civil commitment order.

What I definitely think is absurd is to have such a stringent mechanism in place that essentially deems that any offender who is released (after having been through the evaluation process) is NOT a threat to society yet that assessment is completely ignored once the gates are closed behind you. The fact that I went through this process and was a) found by three different assessments NOT to be a pedophile, and b) not to be a threat to society has had zero impact on the fact that I am still required to register for life and live under the enormous life obstacles associated therewith.

Personally, I believe that having these mechanisms in place and still requiring people to register is extreme. To me it is the politicians having their cake and eating it too.

I'm very interested in understanding why those of you who have spoken out so vehemently against civil commitment are opposed to it. Is it because of the abuses of the mechanism? Or is it because of the concept in general?

@ Wisconsin: I think you misunderstand my position. My position is one of each supporting the other rather than merely looking for support. In other words, sex crime laws and their adverse effects involve many different areas but all are of the same category. What I have seen here is little to no interest in issues that involve civil commitment, and prison sex offender treatment issues. Both are every bit as important and worthy of support, as is the issues that come with sex offender registration.

@ RWsMom: First, thank you for your words of wisdom. Second, I am unsure what you mean by the "perfect case" to litigate. In what context are you speaking about, e.g. sex offender registration, civil commitment, or prison sex offender treatment which is all too often used simply to get evidence and intelligence to civilly commit someone. I presently have a federal lawsuit that I am litigating myself against our prison mental health provider and seven of its employees here in Missouri - apart of my suit involves claims about how the prison sex offender treatment program is used against people with disabilities and that I had to deny my ward the opportunity to be paroled just to protect him from falling victim to the prsion sex offender treatment program.

Legal:
Norm is looking for a case that is pre Megan's law that still are requiring people to register. (Which I believe is 1994 or prior.)
I agree with your lawsuit and I believe that the SOMMS treatment is detrimental to those who are innocent and convicted of these crimes. Primarily because registrants often are forced or coerced into false confessions, for fear that they will not be let out of prison or off probation/parole unless they comply. I have had WAY too many registrants tell me that they just say what the therapists wants them to hear, so they can be done with the classes. Many times I have seen these false confessions come back to haunt the registrant when filing appeals, PCR's or Habeous claims.
Treatment providers have to be approved by SOMMS. And only one company that I know of in Indiana has approved therapists. That tells me that they have the monopoly, which to me, should be illegal because they can use that to their advantage! In many different ways!
I would be interested in talking with you regarding ideas and opportunities to stop this from continuing.
Hugs!

I know in Kansas many offenders were refusing to participate in SOTP while in prison due to the fact that they refused to say something that just wasn't true while many others did just that. These guys would do extremely hard time because they lost all privileges and were bumped up into higher security classifications because of their refusal to "program." When you're security level is increased you end up doing your time in the most violent facilities with inmates who are serving life sentences. Because of this many ended up in protective custody.

I guess in Kansas they have a better system in terms of the qualification / disqualification process in terms of assessment. They HAVE to finish your assessment prior to your release date, and from what I witnessed they don't arbitrarily and capriciously send people past the first round of assessment. There you first see a psychologist (sometimes two) at the prison facility. IF they believe you are a strong enough threat then they recommend that you undergo a more intensive examination at the State Mental Hospital in Larned, Kansas. If that happens then you are transferred to that facility for further testing, and only if they continue to believe you are a threat do they begin a civil proceeding. If that happens then you are transferred to a county jail and assigned an attorney to represent you during the process (even though it is a civil hearing they still assign you counsel from what I understand - at least that was the case in the late 1990's). And if your release date comes up before they finish the evaluation process and before they have a civil order to hold you then they release you.

From what the USA Today article says about what the feds are doing in Butner I believe there will be some federal prisoners who will have a nice little nest-egg when they are released. What they are doing is so unconstitutional an eighth grader could see it isn't right.

Legal, I get that civil commitment is the one area of the SO issues that is neglected severly. I know my reasons for it is TIME, the '980 issue' as it is called here in WI which is the statute underwhich the civil commitment process is defined and layed out to be followed by the courts and the DOC, affects the fewest people currently. Yes I know it is a LAME excuse, but I have to draw a line somewhere and try to help the most people I can. Yes it is unfair, yes it is not right, but if I burn myself out, who will replace me, there was no one until I came along.

I have learned that in this fight one has to learn to pick their battles, use the limited resources they have wisely and try to make the most impact with the people that can bring about real change, while always keeping an eye on what is coming down the pipe and what new tortures they have in the works to make laws. I am only one person, I guess the same question could be asked of anyone on here. I tried to pick something that was near to me and affected me and pretty much everyone else, the harms of the public registry.

Almost the entirety of the SO laws that are enacted throughout our country and states are mostly unconstitutional. If you want to really delve into Constitutionality then the fact that there are U.S. Statutes AT ALL is unconstitutional, let alone what is contained with in them. Income Tax is unconstitutional, it is what the Boston Tea Party was all about, taxation with out representation, since when have you really felt represented by the person you elected? What we are talking about here is something much smaller, some try to use the Double Jeopardy and using that as a description to what is happening to them. I have been hearing it a lot lately from the new people that have been contacting me. I have to again remind them that Double Jeopardy is about being tried for the exact same crime twice, and what they are experiencing is Cruel and Unusual Punishment a defined in the Bill of Rights... What has to be done first is to educate the SOs as to what is really happening, what it means (cause the lawyers that are supposed to explain it don't) and what realistically can be done about it, not the ranting and raving from soap boxes that are no better than the ones the politicians use. Facts, figures, and the collateral damage knocking at the doors of our lawmakers will make the difference here.

We are not in a 100 yd dash here... we are in a 25 mile marathon.

@ RWsMom:

I am sure it differs from one state to another but in Missouri the process goes something like this - prisoners enter phase I, which is the evaluation stage. In this stage they are given tests and have to sign consent forms, apart of which entails a waiver of their 5th Amendment rights, and they are told that they will only have to confess to the crime they are actually convicted of doing.

In phase II, they have to sign the same consent forms and waiver of their 5th Amendment rights. It is in this phase that they are told they must confess to crimes they are merely accused of doing even if they were never charged or prosecuted.

There are four levels in phase II, and participants must achieve all four levels in a specified time or they are kicked out of the program, which makes it even more difficult for people with mental and developmental disabilities. Phase II operates on the peer support format like AA groups, which has about a 8% to 12% success rate for people who are alcoholics, and is largely based on a popularity contest among prisoners.

For people with disabilities, if they graduate, they undergo the same testing that they underwent in phase I, when they complete phase II. The purpose is to see if they are "cured" and if they are not, they are recommended for civil commitment. They do not do this to participatnts who do NOT have disabilities.

In phase II participants are required to write a very detailed confession of guilt to any and all convicted sex crimes AND to any and all mere alleged sex crimes - this is then turned over to police officials for investigation. There are absolutely no safeguards in place to ensure that nobody is forced to give false confessions of guilt. And participants are deceitfully lured to believe that if they graduate they will be paroled.

When I spoke with a former FBI agent who helped revise our state sex offender program, he told me the program is intentionally designed to cause as many people to fail as possible so they are kept locked away for as long as possible. This means the state program is designed to target people with disabilities with the premeditated intent to have them civilly committed and the program is merely a formality to achieve those ends with no intent to actually try to help them.

In civil commitment hearings are formulated on convicting someone based on a hypothetical situation that they will, at some time in the future, commit more sex crimes, which is determined not by their behaviors but whether they have one or more specific disabilities. As such, the defendant has the burden of proof to prove that they either (1) do not have a disability that predisposes them to commit sex crimes, (2) they are cured of the disability that caused the sex crime in the first place, or (3) that their disability does not predispose them to commit sex crimes.

While the AWA requires a showing that the person will have "serioius difficulty" in not committing more sex crimes, Missouri officials, including the courts, decided to lower the standard to "more likely than not" to commit more sex crimes to make it far - far easier to civilly commit people with disabilities. Last I heard, the state AG office has lost only one case out of the hundreds prosecuted in civil commitment hearings.

Neither Missouri legislators, nor Missouri courts including our state Supreme Court care one bit about whether a person is truly innocent of merely sex crimes. In Missouri, you are presumed to be guilty of merely alleged sex crimes never charged or prosecuted even if the facts categorically prove 100% that you are innocent of merely alleged crimes. And in our state sex offender program, if a participant asserts they are innocent they are accused of being in denail - if they continue to assert their innocence they are then accused of being in denail about being in denial.

In other words, the system used in Missouri mirror what was done in Roman law and Nazi law - you are guilty because the government says you are guilty - now shoot him.