You are absolutely right, Independent.

If we keep harping and harping on the fact that a large percentage of registrants are on the sex offender registry for urinating in public or crimes that involve the 19 year old young man having consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend, we begin to lose our credibility. Yes, there are some really minor infractions that can get a person placed on the registry, but we cannot put forth a picture that those situations are common---they are not.

I do a lot of reading and when I see comments at the end of an article which stresses what I have just alluded to, I just cringe. We have to be honest with others as well as ourselves.

The public knows better and as I said, it makes us lose our credibility and look silly.

We cannot afford to lose our credibility in this movement.

On the other hand, most of the registrants on the registry were not placed on there because of first degree rape or for being a serial child molester either. I won't get into percentages because I do not know, but most of the people on the registry did not commit a serious, violent, contact crime.

And there ARE some real monsters on the registry. I met some of them in prison. I could tell you stories about their crimes that would really shock your conscience.
But again, only a very small percentage of those on the registry were guilty of such heinous crimes.

We should point out ALL scenarios if we hope to gain traction in our movement.

rewdiazepam

True that. Of the 4 SOs I know, 2 are on for being in their early 20's with a teenager, one spent 19 years in jail for raping an ex-girlfriend (claimed innocent the entire time) and then there's my hubby who took a plea and I know is innocent. None are what I would consider "the worst of the worst" the registry was created for

Shortly after I found this forum and begin to read and study about advocacy, I read an article in our local newspaper about violent sex offenders on civil commitment. The journalist who wrote the article actually did a good job of covering a difficult topic with no bias. I looked back and read other articles that she had written on this and other topics and I found her to be a very intelligent and open minded reporter. I decided to write her a letter encouraging her to do some research on the registry - in particular some of the outrageous restrictions and the effects on the families of SOs. I made it clear to her that I was not talking about violent, repeat offenders with a high likelihood of re-offending but rather the hundreds of thousands of husbands, fathers, sons and boyfriends that, for one reason or another, found themselves facing restrictions and lifetime registration. I did list some circumstances that included the Romeo- Juliet situation but also viewing of an image that was considered CP, false accusations, as well as those who had made a mistake but were certainly not predators or repeat offenders. I did speak of how many of these men had fulfilled their sentences - whether prison time or probation - and now only wanted to return to a productive life and live peacefully with their families. (She had made some references to this in her article). I sent the email along with links to a couple of articles that I had found from other journalists on the topic. She sent back a "thank you for your message and for the links". Don't know if she ever followed up.

Anyway, the point is, later when I re- read the letter, I thought the same thing that you are saying - some of what I said there didn't really apply to most of the situations on this board; didn't necessarily apply even to my situation. Hey, it was my first attempt!

I guess what my question is: what DO my write that will open the door to changing these laws? I know many people have spoken of the families being the key - their stories need to be heard. The collateral damage of these unjust laws. Where do we begin and how do we take those first steps? I feel like a letter I would write today would be different from the one I wrote earlier - I have read more, learned more since then. For me, sometimes I am hesitant - my boyfriend is still in prison and has not had to live under the registry yet. My purpose has been to educate myself because it is harder to fear something you know about. (I believe a lot of fear comes from misunderstanding or fearing the unknown.)

Didn't mean to write so long - my main question is how do we most effectively represent our cause? I know this forum is for support not active advocacy but maybe you can point me in the right direction...

The biggest thing, in my opinion, is the low recidivism rate of the majority of those registered. This is a 180 from the reason always given for the registry. They quote a high rate when reality says the opposite. Yes, there are the true serial rapists that will re-offend no matter what. The registry does not stop them. But, the great unwashed sees that small group as all on the registry. That is the image that needs to be changed.

Personally I don't think anyone is going to listen to recidivism statistics either. People in groups are sheep, can't even listen to what academia is trying to tell them.

If I were officially in charge of the movement, I would focus on a large tier down system. The premise being that bad things happen when we have an overloaded system. It has gotten too unwieldy, and the police and corrections cannot focus on the people they need to focus on.

It would focus on the static 99, and other tests used to gauge the chances of recidivism. The selling point of this whole thing would be that the police would always still have a list of all offenders even after they come off the public registry.

Tier 1 offenders could apply after 5 years off parole or probation to get their name taken off the public registry.

Tier 2 offenders could apply after 10 years off parole and probation to get tiered down to tier 1. Then they would have to wait another 5 years to get off the public registry if they have offense free living.

Tier 3 offenders could apply after 10 years off parole and probation to get tiered down to tier 2. 10 years to get to tier 1, and 5 years off of tier 1.

The only problem with this system is how peopled are tiered in the first place. It needs to be done based on risk of reoffending. Inevitably prosecutors would start tiering everyone at tier 3.

There needs to be light at the end of the tunnel, not lifetime registration.

Independent,
The Static 99 and other tests are not accurate indicators. The actual recidivism of offenders are. It seems that those with violent offenses are more prone to re-offend than, let's say, a R & J case. Overall, the recidivism is around 5%. That is the indicator.
I do agree that a path to freedom is absolutely necessary. The most dangerous people are those who feel they have nothing to lose.

Personally I do not care what the statistics are or anything else - regardless of whether the crime was benign (and many of them are - certainly they are not what most people think) or not the registry is punitive cruel and unusual punishment - it is no less than a Scarlett letter and ruins peoples lives - life time registry is abhorrent and I do not care what the crime is~

If a person is so bad they have to be punished for life then they should not be on the street

I agree with coolrich001 if they feel they have nothing to lose then that is when they can be most dangerous. And these are people who just could have made one mistake at a young age. That is the problem people just have to hear those two words"SEX OFFENSE" and automatically they ASSUME they know the circumstances. they think they are dealing with some kind of monster. unfortunately it really does not matter if you are a level 1,2, or 3 because being convicted of a sex offense is just like receiving a life sentence. the courts do not believe in giving a second chance. and that seems so unfair!

I think the real issue is how extreme the stigma is against research and even discussion of the issues. Mention "sex offender" and people have hysterical reactions. They don't even respond as hysterically to "murderer".

What would really change the issue is if researchers could do their work in peace and with respect from the scientific community. We can make our points about statistics all we want, but until the people who can get out their and discuss the scientific validity of their findings are actually listened to, we're not going to go very far.

The only thing that I believe will get us somewhere is for each of us to have the courage to talk about how this has affected us. We need to write the books and the articles that demonstrate how cruel the registry is. It starts to need to be seen for the punishment it really is.

In other words, public perception has to change before the registry changes. Either it will take some celebrity standing up against it or it will be like drops of water wearing away at the stone. However, I believe that the stone is not granite. It is sandstone. The basis of the registry is flimsy. It is ridiculously expensive, and it causes generational harm without doing anybody any real good.

It may seem like a small thing, but we need to each find a way to be one of those drops of water. That is the only way to change public perception.

The static 99 is done with actual research coolrich. It compares factors that could lead to recidivism versus actual recidivism. The only problem is it is not a great tool for people who committed the crime of CP.

And I also agree it is a scarlet letter that while it may have started as not punishing former offenders, in the internet age we live in now it definitely does. I think it violates the ex post facto law found in clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. I think eventually the Supreme Court will overturn Smith v. Doe.

I believe that research does not lie and researchers do not lie. They are not just bleeding heart liberals trying to mislead the country with phony stats. I think the misconception that most re-offend is wrong based on the research. When ignorant people say things like sex offenders just get better at hiding their victims after they are incarcerated and get out I just laugh. Because being on parole/probation and being on the sex offender registry gives the offender more scrutiny not less. Therefore it is even harder to get away with more crimes than it was the first time.

I say all this because it doesn't matter what we think. It really doesn't. We can all believe in lock step what all the leading research shows, and it amounts to nothing. We need a plan to convince the public to give sex offenders a chance at living a normal life. A tier down approach works because it gives the public safety that they are looking for (which by most research shows is not needed), and it provides light at the end of the tunnel for sex offenders.

It wouldn't be as bad if residency and access restrictions were done away with as well

Valerie Drunkhurst is never right on any level.

No activist I have seen has ever claimed "most" registrants are public pissers or teen sexters. However, we state you can indeed land on the list for those acts. Semantics makes a big difference. There's a difference between saying something is a possibility In making the latter statement we open up the discussion to a truism that not every person on the list is a chili-mo or rape-o.

The other error some people make is forgetting the fact that the legal definitions don't accurately portray the details of the case. If a 19 year old bangs a 7 year old in a state where the AoC is 18, then that person committed "rape," no matter what actually happened. Because the "victim" is a minor, the act is considered "violent." So even if the 19 year old's "victim" is a willing participant, even if she actively or aggressively pursued the act, the 19 year old is a "violent rapist." We can't look on the list and differentiate between him and a 19 year old who actually forcefully raped someone.

Any alleged issues of "credibility" stem from two main issues. One is the fact most of you don't take the fight to those who propagate this garbage. The second coming from the fact that we are in the minority group, and the mass media does not cater to us. When it comes to marketing, VISIBILITY EQUALS CREDIBILITY. We aren't seen as credible because most of you are content with laying low, or "hiding in the shadows," and according to the Valigaturds of the world, hiding is what "pedos" do because you're really all out trolling for kids in your rusty vans. Invisible people are easier to dehumanize and discriminate against. It is amazing how people change attitudes quickly when confronted by someone they

In order to win the war of words, you have to understand how to fight back.

That's just a a bad example my friend about the 19 year old. A 7 year old can never ever under any circumstances consent to sex. It's one thing of the victim is 14, but 7?