I can understand both sides from some degree... If I had a child who was sexually violated I would be incensed .. I was a 10 year old when a close friends father molested me and it screwed me up for a very long time (I never told)
Perhaps the sex offended registry should be like a parole?? that people are on it for a period of time and then released from it?
Children have to be protected and the general public from dangerous offenders ...What do you think about this rew and what do you think should be done?
I hear what you've written re most offenders are known by the victim... However if it's someone who's attracted to children won't they end up looking for children elsewhere??
I think registries are dangerous in and of themselves and I think they should be limited to police ... I don't agree with something for life unless the person has a life sentence

Jan,

One of the many problems with the sex offender registry in America is that it is applied retroactively without any due process for the offender.

Of course, you know that I am going to see it from the offender's standpoint, as well as from the victim's. It hurts me when I know children are being abused. I don't condone any of the crimes committed against children, but there has to be a balance between the offender's rights and the rights of the children.

My God, I had children and now have grandchildren, so it is not as if my stance ignores the abused children's' plight.

OK, here we go. When I was sentenced in 1992, nobody had ever heard of the sex offender registry as it did not exist until 1994 when it was first enacted into law as Megan's Law in New Jersey.

I went to trial and lost. The jury gave me a 20 year sentence in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, and that is all they sentenced me to. No probation, no stipulations, nothing but 20 years in prison.

When I was released from prison, I learned that there was a NEW requirement I must follow called Megan's Law, which was never mentioned at sentencing. Wait a minute. Did not the jury sentence me to only 20 years? Now they have changed the terms of what I have to do when released. Registry? What is a sex offender registry?

The government changed the goal posts on me.

Of course we know the registry was created when the lawmakers in each state passed a law to keep track of sex offenders, AFTER THE FACT. That is, the law was passed after I was convicted yet still applied to me.

I served my sentence as it was rendered by the Oklahoma jury---completely served it and paid my debt to society. But wait, there is more I now have to do. Now they have added more requirements regarding my charge---they have enhanced my sentence without me having the opportunity to challenge the decision. The jury said nothing about a registry.

What makes it even worse is that there is no due process or a court hearing to determine if a new released inmate should even be on the registry. They just willy nilly pass a law and a sex offender must register, which entails the following-----

He must register with local law enforcement every 90 days if he is a tier 3 offender. This period of registration is for life.

He cannot even be present with a certain distance from a school, playground, park, daycare center, or wherever children congregate. No more going to his children's sports activities or even a parent teacher conference in many states. In some states the registrant can attend, but only with permission from the principal of the school.

He cannot reside or live within a one or two thousand radius of these aforementioned places where kids are. These are called residency restrictions, which are a problem themselves.

The registrant has his driver's license stamped in three places across the face in bold red letters with the words "Sex Offender." Nice touch when you are carded to buy something or open a checking account.

He must register each and every vehicle that he owns or has access to drive.

There are also compliance checks in which local law enforcement comes to the house---sometimes in military SWAT gear--- to make sure you are living where you said you were when you registered.

In some states the registrant cannot pass out candy on Halloween, nor can their children, as the lights in the house have to be left off. Never mind that there has never been a case of a child being molested on Halloween night.

Also many more children are killed by drunk drivers on Halloween. Why are DUI convictions immune from the public registry? Could it be that the lawmakers will not touch the DUI registry as they and some of their family members have past convictions of DUI or DWI and they themselves would be on the registry?

And guess what----you get to have your address, name, picture, and a bunch of other personal things splattered on the internet for all to see. If some busybody wants to harass you, all they have to do is look up your address on the public registry on the internet and find your house. Some sites even have a map to your house. There have been cases where sex offenders have been murdered when a vigilante found their address on the public internet, sought them out, and killed them.

See, when laws are passed as a product of fear, anything goes. The political climate in this country is fear----fear of everything.

And finally, in many states, the state charges the registrant an annual fee to help defray the cost of operating the registry. A registrant has the privilege of paying for his own misery.

I did not agree to any of this. It was just put on me by some lawmaker.

An additional aspect about the registry is that for most registrants there is no way to get off it in the future. If you were convicted of indecent exposure when you were 20 years old, you will still be registering every 90 days when you are 80 years old.

The registry is able to be retroactively enforced because the Supreme Court of the United States in 2003 in the Smith vs. Doe case that the registry was just a civil scheme to protect the public and was not punitive.

Civil regulations can be applied retroactively as long as they are not deemed punitive.

With all these requirements, can anyone with a straight face tell me the sex offender registry is not punitive?

The recidivism rate for sex offenders is very low. We don't have registries for murderers, drug dealers, people who run over children with repeated DUIs, gang leaders, or any other type of criminal activity.

Why are sex offenders singled out, especially since their re-offense rate is very low? Some states have adopted meth registries, domestic abuse registries, and violence registry, but the scope of these registries is very limited and the rules are nothing as severe as those of the sex offender registry.

I don't think there is a need for public "lists" of any group of people in a democracy as we have in America. I believe it is unconstitutional to pass a law and make it retroactive for those who were convicted before the law's passage.

If a person is so dangerous that we have to place him on a list with his picture and address placed on the internet, he should not have been released from prison in the first place.

Jan, I am no longer on the registry because of the Starkey case in Oklahoma where the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that those convicted before 2007 had to revert back to the registration scheme they had when they were released from prison, which was to register once a year for 10 years. When my 10 years was up, in 2013, I was removed.

Here is what I propose, Jan---------------------------------

If a person will be expected to register, then make it part of his sentence. None of this retroactive nonsense. Admit that the registry is punishment and treat is as such. If the registry is not part of the sentence, the offender does not have to register.

Children certainly need to be protected, but the registry is not efficient and in almost all cases it is not a means of protecting the children as I explained in another one of my posts.

With so many people on the registry---approaching 800,000----including people that are not even a threat to anyone, the registry has become so diluted that law enforcement cannot discern the true predators from the harmless registrants. As a result, they no longer have the resources to watch everyone, so they cannot watch any one person properly and the purpose of the registry is void.

They cannot concentrate on the really bad sex offenders and those with multiple charges and a history of sex charges because they are trying to police too many registrants; the registry has become too large to manage.

If there has to be a registry, make it known to law enforcement only and only put the worst offenders on it.

Does any sensible person think that someone on the registry for an indecent exposure charge when they took a whiz outside after a football game is dangerous? Does any sensible person think that a 21 year old who is charged and placed on the registry for having sex with a 16 year old----and sometimes even marrying her---is a danger? Well, then take them off. They are no danger and there is no reason for them to be on the registry.

The public cannot handle the registry. If there has to be a registry, make it known to law enforcement only and only put the worst offenders on it.

Some of the laws that spawn from the registry are very counterproductive.

Residency restrictions defeat the purpose of the registry. In most towns, because of the residency restrictions, only a small percent of the living area is permissible for the registrants to live. If the registrant cannot find a place to live---and this happens quite often---the offender will just quit registering and go underground. This defeats the entire purpose of the registry as now the police have no idea where they are at.

Jan, you said, " However if it's someone who's attracted to children won't they end up looking for children elsewhere??"

Stranger danger is mostly a myth. There are very few John Coueys, the man that killed Jessica Lunsford, walking around. Most all sex crimes are committed by someone the family knows----an uncle, a step brother, a scout leader, a teacher at school, a baseball coach, etc. In these cases the registry would not be effective anyway.

I want laws that will protect the offenders' Constitutional rights while giving the victims of crime help and at the same time protecting our children.

The sex offender registry does none of this.

rewdiazepam

Sounds terrible.

I can'tget thru all (of the second long post) until tomorrow. Sheesh, what an infinte bummer. :( . :(

One thing mentioned... is it possible to get a state ID? Ppl in my state do if they lose lisc on DUIs. And these ID's are spoken of as things to use for checking books out of libr. -- But the ppl can't have 'em while having dr. lisc. . . it's late - ------ will be back

One of the problems an advocate or supporter always confronts is that when you convey to people all the rules and regulations of the registry, many do not really believe you; they think to themselves that nothing can be that burdensome and the government would not impose so many regulations on someone who has finished their sentence.

But trust me, I know these laws and they are just as I am telling you. I have an excellent reputation in the support and advocacy community as both a capable support person and a person of high moral character and honesty and I would not embellish the facts. My reputation is very important to me.

OK, let me go into some more detail. I know, I know, this is long, but I have to make it lengthy to convey everything. Read it in stages. ha ha

Not all states have the words "Sex Offender" plastered on the face of the license in red letters. Some states have no designation at all and some only have a small code of a few numbers on the license so anyone in law enforcement can look at the license, see the code, and know he is dealing with a sex offender. But most have the red letters that stick out like a sore thumb.

When the proposed law was being considered in the legislature, the Department of Public Safety---who issues driver's licenses here in my state---- said the placing the "mark" on all sex offenders' licenses would be too expensive. So the author of the bill relented and modified the bill to only include "habitual" and "aggravated" offenders, which includes most registrants in Oklahoma.

http://tinyurl.com/m5o73xp

I was not affected by the mark on the license, as I was not considered "habitual" or "aggravated" but by law registrants must also renew their licenses every year. But the ones who did have the lettering had some horrendous stories to tell when they presented the license to buy something or open a back account, which is required because of the Patriot Act.

BTW, it was the driver's license mark that really irritated the Oklahoma Justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court when they made the decision in the Starkey case in the summer of 2013 that all the regulations had changed the registry from a civil scheme to a punitive law and thus it was unconstitutional as punitive laws cannot be applied retroactively, which Oklahoma was doing. It was only punitive for those that were convicted before 2007. Those convicted after 2007 were not affected by the Starkey decision------------

http://tinyurl.com/n3rxe3e

Even if you apply for a state ID here, the words "sex offender" in red letters will be on the face of the ID, so there is no way to get around it.

Some states have entertained the idea of making registrants display special license plates on their cars so they can be identified. Some want a green neon plate and some just want the plate to plainly display that this car belongs to a sex offender and a sex offender is most likely driving.

http://tinyurl.com/mnvuoos

This license plate nonsense would really be a nice touch if your wife, girlfriend, or one of your children were driving your car with the sex offender license plate and was killed by a vigilante.

Oh no, we are not done yet. Some counties in Florida have taken it upon themselves to place "sex offender" signs in the yards of certain registrants to warn everyone that a sex offender lives there-----

http://tinyurl.com/c7khbbh

That huge red sign is a nice addition to the property, isn't it?

Please keep in mind that most of these folks have completely finished their sentence, are off probation or parole, and some were sentenced years ago and have never re-offended.

I am a father and a grandfather. I am not advocating to not punish those who break the law and hurt children or women, but I just want there to be some fairness to the law. These laws help nobody.

The distance in Oklahoma for the residency restrictions is 2,000 feet, but most states have a 1,000 foot boundary, which is measured from the property line of the school or daycare center to the property line of the registrant "as the crow files." The only exception in Oklahoma that they will make is if the registrant lived at and owned the property before his conviction; then he did not have to move.

The distance for the Buffer Zones, places a registrant cannot even be present, is 300 feet. Some states it is 100 feet, some are 500 feet, and some states have no regulations like Buffer Zones at all.

There have been cases where sex offenders were arrested eating at McDonalds because they were within 300 feet of the small playground with the swings that many McDonalds have for the kids.

The sex offender registry and all its rules and regulations are nothing but political animals. They may have had good intentions when they were first enacted, but now they are just a means for politicians to use to pass more laws restricting sex offenders, and thus assuring election and re-election as they appear favorable to the "tough on crime" crowd.

Besides greatly reducing the places a sex offender can reside, the residency restrictions also prevent registrants from residing together or living too close to each other.

The state passes these laws and they are a self-fulfilling prophecy as the laws passed makes it impossible for many registrants to live anywhere; then they are violated and go back to prison.

They don't want registrants to live close to a school or where other children gather, but if they try to live too close together, the state says they are "clustering" and that has been made illegal also.

Below is an example of vigilantes using the sex offender registry to obtain addresses of sex offenders and murdering them-----

http://tinyurl.com/nuzkhgq

I probably should write a book or a bunch of articles about my prison experience and my experience with the sex offender registry, but nobody would believe me. People cannot imagine that the laws are so restrictive for ALL sex offenders, even the public whizzers and the Romeo and Juliet teen crimes.

There have also been children placed on the sex offender registry. Yes, children. You think I am just making it up? Nope, see for yourself----

http://tinyurl.com/mh8cq6r

Some states have children as young as 10 years old on the registry. That is child abuse by the state!!!!!!!!!!

http://tinyurl.com/pst6fgv

I provide links a person can click to verify what I say.

I am trying to educate the public on sex offenders, registrants, and the sex offender registry, as well as on subjects such as judicial reform and the abolition of the death penalty. Around here I have a very good reputation and people will listen.

Do you see the MADNESS into which America has descended with some fo these laws?

I am off the registry and could very easily walk away, but I won't. Too many of the people I care about are dealing with all these issues.

I only want to make a difference in these people's lives---that is all.

I hope I can help.

rewdiazepam

It really is terrible rew.... People automatically believe the system unless they've had a birds eye view into what 'can' happen... It's not innocent until proven guilty... It's guilty until proven innocent and by people who are often great actors....Great lawyering is great acting
One of the top careers of sociopaths is a lawyer and I believe that says a lot... It comes down to winning not what's right.. I think people need to wake up and look at the North American system... We have differences here but we have similar systems.. And they have to realize that the law makers also have an agenda

Based on all the sociology and psychology courses I took in college it seems that it is against human nature to stans up against injustices unless: a) they are only doing so to jump onboard a bandwagon; b) they or someone they care about has been or currently is the victim of injustice.

Unless there is overwhelming evidence right up in their face everywhere they look and it makes the part of society they consider themselves a part of look bad the average person is unlikely to actually care about injustice. When these people say things about how terrible injustices are or that something should be done about them it is just them going through the motions of what they feel is exected of them by society to maintain their own "good" image. If confronted about why they don't do anything to help combat the issue themselves most people seem to fall back on all sorts of excuses. Especially the excuse of thinking someone else is going to take care of it for them. This can be observed in social experiments where a theft in plain view is staged abd the bystanders who were observed watching it happen but doing nothing about it are asked why they didn't say or do anything.


Getting enough people to actually care about making reforms to the sex offender registry and helping those wrongly convicted of sex crimes would require a large scale publicity stunt aimed at making as many people as possible actively fear these injustices happening to them or their loved ones. Only then are people likely to see the problem for what it is and stop clinging to the belief that the system doesn't make mistakes like that.

SleepyWalrus,

I fully agree with everything you said.

An issue is never important to most people until it happens to them or one of their loved ones. When it hits home, it becomes important to them.

I don't know how many mothers, wives, or family members write me and tell me, "I used to hate sex offenders and wanted them all sent away for life until my son got into this mess. Now I see that it is a very complex subject and not everyone on the registry is dangerous." I bet I have heard that line a thousand times.

I am realistic and pragmatic. I tell people not to expect a change any time soon.

I also tell them that nothing likely will change until enough people have themselves or a love one put on the registry and it affects a large enough group of people that they will demand changes. That will be the watershed moment, and not until then.

rewdiazepam

Sometimes in my work, I start to lose faith in humanity.

Placing a 10 year old child on the sex offender registry is just completely insane and whoever was responsible for that law in these states needs to be put away.

I cannot think of anything more damn stupid. Most 10 year old boys know very little about the complexities of sex, so how can they be a sex offender?
They think it is a treat to look at dad's Playboy magazines.

Here is the kicker. There was a situation a few years ago when a nine year old boy and his eight year old neighbor was playing "doctor." The DA wanted to charge BOTH of them for a sex crime and put both children on the sex offender registry.

Sometimes I am at a loss for words.

rewdiazepam

If , Rew , you were to start an article , there would be the need to contact a magazine like Mother Jones to ask if they can publish something with numerous footnotes.
IMHO that would be a place to start. --And not a criminal justice scholarly quarterly**; publishers of the latter are not aiming at the general public.

( Of course an article or two can lead to a book.
/ If the article gets some good reviews and so-called fan letters.)

What is your thought about the term , "accused sex offenders" ? I've veen uncomfortable here with some of the instances where "sex offender(s)" has as a group been named -- and I know that a significant percentage are not guilty.
/ "Alleged" is used by newspapers especially. "Convicted" means to many ppl "guilty." A criminal lawyer I know has said, "If they were convicted, they pro'ly did it." He was referred to felonies and misdemeanors in general of course , not this recent-obsession-with-sex which is our topic.
/ If my acquaintance can think this about a word, IMO lots of ppl likely think it also.
/ Am looking for an expression : "person or set of ppl who were sentenced but we're being reserved on how many of 'em actually did it."

I don't know of any popular books on this. Is it an "untold story"?..at that level? . . . . . . / cheers,
. C . . P.S.: Footnote ** The criminal justice department where I am (Indiana University) has plenty of progressive ppl. A favorite saying of a couple ppl I know inDept is, "The police cause more crimes than they prevent.' (I wish they would put a qualifier with that, sheesh.)

Rew about the 'stranger danger' that was a catastrophe...All it did was cause a lot of fear... When I wrote about adults that are attracted to children will find others I believe that they do however it's quite often by way of perhaps becoming a step parent or finding a way to work or volunteer around children
That's who they desire thus they will find a way
I do agree with a lot of what you write about the registry though R... I think if someone is convicted of a sex crime the same rules should apply as to someone convicted of any other crime... Once a sentence is up it should be up
I think at one time there were so many sex offenses that were ignored that now it's gone to the other extreme and extremes are never good... Victims being put on trial for their behaviour or the way they dressed... This has happened with a number of things .. One extreme to another

I once went to a 'girl party' ... There were about 10 of us... We were from all over the place and became friends over time as adults.. Baby boomers... Somehow we started talking about child sexual abuse... Every one of us had been abused to some degree from molestation to child rape...( the abusers were all known to us).. None of us had any relief via the justice system and most didn't tell

There was a massive case of priests in Canada from a these days as well... So I think it's important steps have been taken to protect the innocent... I just think they should be smart steps... Not extreme to the point of ridiculous taking down anyone in it's wake including the children

I think rew that the woman that did this to you should be prosecuted... I think she gave up her rights when she committed this vile act and to tell you the truth I can't imagine a woman this vicious could be a good mom.. How could she teach values and love .. She needs to stand up and be responsible... Sorry I'm getting off topic

I think that those accused will have a name put to the accusation as in any other crime

I think public speaking at a University level can help... Rubin Hurricane Carter used to talk at a lot of universities and more advocate organizations can pop up when bright young people become passionate about a cause..x

Jan,

You said, " Rew about the 'stranger danger' that was a catastrophe...All it did was cause a lot of fear."

So true, Jan. Whenever there was a high profile crime involving a child being abducted and sexually assaulted, the 24/7 cable media went wild and gave the public the impression that stranger danger was common.

In fact, much of the sex offender registry is predicated on the fear of stranger danger. Most of the public has been led to believe that everyone on the registry is guilty and serial child molesters, which is not true at all.

Jan, you said, "When I wrote about adults that are attracted to children will find others I believe that they do however it's quite often by way of perhaps becoming a step parent or finding a way to work or volunteer around children."

I probably did not quite understand what you meant in my previous message, but yeah, true child molesters will find a way to be around their prey----the children. They will be church leaders, boy scout leaders, or close, trusted members of the family.

One thing is for sure: If someone really wants to molest or sexually assault a child, the sex offender registry will not stop them, nor will residency restrictions or any other law they might pass.

Jan, you said," I think at one time there were so many sex offenses that were ignored that now it's gone to the other extreme and extremes are never good... Victims being put on trial for their behavior or the way they dressed... This has happened with a number of things .. One extreme to another."

I agree with that. Sex offenses have always been going on, but with the 24/7 cable news networks and better media coverage, we just hear more about them. Sex crimes are nothing new.

Jan, you said, " I think rew that the woman that did this to you should be prosecuted."

She in fact did attempt to recant her story. In 2005, almost 15 years after my trial and conviction, I received a letter from her. She now lived in California, was divorced and had two children.

She apologized to me for what had happened and wanted a chance to come forth and tell the truth. She mentioned that she had just had a religious experience and she knew she had to make things right with God and me if she ever hoped to have a relationship with God. She also said she would be willing to come to Oklahoma and testify under oath that I was innocent, I was never guilty, and that I never even touched her.

I called my defense attorney and he made arrangement for her to be flown in from California to testify at a court hearing. We had hoped that a recantation under oath would clear my name.

The day of the hearing came and we met her at the courthouse. The very minute---the very second---that her butt touched the chair in the witness stand, the DA jumped up and told her "that if your testimony today differs in any respect with your testimony at trial, I will prosecute you for perjury and have CPS take your children away.

Well, that was the end of that. She cannot testify and make things straight if the DA is going to threaten her.

But I am OK with it now. In the beginning I retried my case for hours every day, every week, and every month. I did struggle with it a lot. It hurt.

But now, I rarely think about it and frankly, I don't care. I know what happened, I have always been at peace with myself, so no harm done.

One thing my false conviction did do is to make me work to support others who were once in my shoes and call for reform. If this had never happened to me, you can bet your life savings that I would not be typing this right now.

It has become my life's work.

rewdiazepam

Big hug for you R.... I still think she should have taken her lumps... She said she had a religious experience and wanted to be right with God...Of course there would be consequences for what she did and so should there be... People need to be stopped from being a part of this type of nightmare
You have a very generous spirit rew and I'm glad that you do for your peace of mind.... You turned this pain into something great for others and God bless you for all that you do... I'm so glad that I've come to know such a great human spirit...x

When my kids were born, I was a stay at home mom, and joined a mom's group.

I was the ONLY person I know of that went to the local police force to ask about sex offenders......the ONLY one.

Background, when I was in 5th grade (about 10), I went to my friend's house for the first time. I will never forget the way I felt when her dad came in the room. I KNEW at that moment, that I would not let myself be alone in the room with him. I followed my friend or her sister around the house like crazy. This was back when no one talked about abuse, and I'm not even sure that I knew what sex was yet.

I have told that story to my kids too many times. But from the time they could talk, I made it a point to HAVE them talk to strangers. I wanted to arm them with the feeling about what it's supposed to feel like, so that if they ever get the feeling like I got from Linda's dad....that they will know it.

Now I will never know for sure if Linda was molested. But starting in Jr High, she started doing hard drugs. Even the "bad" kids stayed away from her. By the time high school rolled around, she looked like crap.

I've given my kids advice about how to react to stranger kidnapping, but stranger kidnapping is getting increasingly rare. I believe that it's around 100/year now, down from 300/year when I was a kid.

Video cameras and DNA are doing a much better job of catching the right person, and catching them quicker. Kids are getting the message to tell. Not as much as they should, but certainly 1000% more than when I was a kid. I sure didn't tell anyone. I wouldn't have known how to even put it into words. (Hey, he's creepy, my friend is the shyest girl in class, maybe you should check out if her dad is doing something to her?? Yeah, sure. Back then the police wouldn't even start looking for a kid for 24 hours.)

And rew, I'm terribly terribly sorry for what you went through. I cannot even imagine what it must have been like for you, and your family, and for you.

patti22,

Thank you for your kind thoughts. It is nice to know that some people do understand situations like mine.

rewdiazepam