This doesn't bother me in the least!

A few years back a station in Boston did an expose on sex offender registries, they went to the listed addresses of those offenders and they found that 95%, yes 95%, did not live at their listed address.

wow cab that's truly frightening.

I think the mark on the ID is a good idea. At least it's not embarrassing to them to show their driver's license when using a credit card or anything like that.

yes, some crimes are so heinous that one must bear the label forever. however, I can understand that for some it may seem unnecessary to continue the punishment for 20, 30 years. I looked up sex-offenders in my hometown once. for one, I knew some of the people who were listed. however, many of them had committed their crimes up to 30 years ago. subtracting their current age from the date of the crime, you could tell that some of them must have been say a 20 yr old boy dating an underage girl, or something similar. maybe they were falsely accused. it's a really tough call, because you don't want to punish someone forever, but at the same time you can't take a chance and let someone slip through the cracks who may hurt another child.

I agree Kris, I have a friend who was caught with a teen in his early 20s. So he'll bear the mark all his life for that mistake.

Also, before we go implementing this thing, how helpful will it really be for a police officer during a traffic stop? I mean, if kids are transported a lot for molestation, then I guess, but if it's just a somewhat random occurrence that this man had four boys in his car, then it seems like a costly and time-consuming hassle. And if it works for molesters, what about convicted rapists? Should their cars be searched differently too? Should they have an invisibile stamp as well?

i think a rapist is a sex offender, so yes, they would be included in the group getting the stamp.

i dont think they should stop with just a mark on their license. if someone molested a kid they should be tattooed on their hand or something - where everyone can see it. these people are lucky to ever get out of prison.

I agree with yesteryear... i have a friend who was raped and I think a mark on a license is no where near enough punishment.

Well hell you might as well tatoo them save some money and the environment.

I agree. A big S.O. on the forehead should work!

I dont understand. If he was pulled over, it should have automatically come up on the database that he was a so, right? Why put it on the license. I just dont get it.

Beware of those who yell the loudest. Mark Foley was one of them while at the same time looking to bugger underage children (pages).

I told a friend of mine today that there is only one vermin I hate more than a cockroach, that's a politician screaming "sex offender law. Get tough, get tough."

Well, all the myths and hysteria has done nothing but increase votes and ratings. They protect no one.

Roger Werholz, Kansas Correctional Secretary, says, "Sex offender Laws DON'T WORK and THEY ACTUALLY MAKE THINGS MORE DANGEROUS"

I totally agree with him as I have studied the issues. He also says, "What we want to do is not so much what makes us FEEL safer but ACTUALLY MAKES US SAFER. It's not what the sex offender deserves, IT'S WHAT WE DESERVE. We deserve to live in a community in a state where we are as safe as possible."

My personal opinion is that John Walsh has done so much damage to the Constitution and Bill of rights that WE ARE ALL IN JEAPORDY.

All I can say is BEWARE of the politicians who get elected by being "Tough" on crime. They have all done enough damage.
Every new law passed, Adam Walsh Act, Jessica's Law, residency restrictions, sets a former offender up for failure. I use the word FORMER offender because when one looks at the FACTS, they will find that approximately 95% of ALL first time offenders never commit another sex crime. In fact, California's recently released recidivist rates, put out by the Department of Corrections, states that LESS than 4% Recidivist rate FOR FIRST TIME OFFENDERS.

I don't like the term registered sex offender or sex offender because it implies they are continuing to offend. THE VAST MAJORITY ARE NOT.

From state to state, you will find recidivism for first time offenders to be in the single digits.

What needs to be done?

Do away with residency restrictions for those who have completed their contracts with the courts. They finish parole without another sex crime, paid their fines. Allow them to have STABILITY. To be able to have a home and job is vital not only to them but to society as well. We deserve that. We'll be safer and the families, wives and children of former offenders can live a normal life. I have no problem with a harsher sentence for a repeat offender, or a violent rapist especially those who did not know their victim. They are the few and the rare. 90plus percent of all new sex crimes are committed by individuals NOT on the registry. They are mostly family members or known to the family. We need to focus on PREVENTION and EDUCATION.

The law makers are NOT doing that because it's an easy issue when your low in the polls and to come out against a polititian who IS trying to make us safer is accused of coddling sex offenders Wake up people.

The Adam Walsh Act needs to be declared unconstitutional and some day will be. It was done behind closed doors as (get this), noncontroversial, thanks to Mark Foley and a few others. Congress never got to to debate one word of it. The AWA is another form of punishment under the guise of regulatory legislation. And it most certainly "Does More Harm than Good."

States are threatened under the federal guidelines of the AWA that if they do not comply they will loose a percentage of their Byrne grant money that goes into law enforcement. A HUGE problem here is it is costing states hundreds of millions , if not billions of dollars to impliment this law in order to save a few million. It makes me wonder where the real money trail leads. Computer tracking systems? I wonder if Bill Oreilly, Mark Foley and law makers across the country port folio is heavy in this type of investments. (Just a thought), but follow the money and I think we could come up with something.

It's a huge mess all the way around. Ohio and other states are spending millions in court cases that are challenging the constitutionally of the AWA and other states are saying No to it's implementation.

Let me recommend,Ricky's life here:
http://www.rickyslife.com/index.php
and here www.CFCOKLAHOMA.COM for articles relevant to the issues

I agree with YY! However, for those that are with something such as "satutory rape" I think that gets real different. I don't think a 19 year old should be on an SO list or even called a sex offender becuase he had a girlfriend who was 14. There is way too much to say as far as "statutory rape" is concerned. I'll just say it's messed up.

I do think the drivers liscense thing is a good idea. I think though it should be only for violent offenders, pedifiles and rapists. The registering thing is still something, better than nothing.

MSLGW, I agree with some that you're saying and definate good points. But Adam Walsh act and Jessica's law etc. those things are good as far as I'm concerned. Any sex offender as far as PEDIFILE, isn't deserving of a second chance as far as I'm concerned. I think as far pedifiles I wish we could go medivel. I know a lot of people would consider my thoughts vigliante or vindictive. OH well to that.

As far as the Rickyslife thing and other things like that, I totally agree with you.

sorry I spelled pediphile wrong. I DO know how to spell it. I just don't know why I did that.

wtf is the matter with me? pedophile! I think that subject just gets me worked up.

I think if this is rooted in safety concerns and not in punishment, it is good. This is good - it is a reminder to check for this during a routine traffic stop (no, officers don't always run your entire criminal history).

Child molesters had higher rates of reoffense than rapists.

Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders were rearrested for another sex crime.

Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.

Also, the reliance on charges/arrests omit offenses that are not reported to the police (common in sex crimes).

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm
http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

Excellent post/info Meg!

I was really really impressed with MSLGW's post. I wholeheartedly agree. I would say a definite majority of "sex offender" legislation is due to the popularity of being tough on sex offenders instead of actually having a purpose. A year ago my city voted for legislation by a sweeping majority that prohibited sex offenders from living a certain distance from schools, parks, or places of worship (even greater than state mandated distance). The county's DISTRICT ATTORNEY lambasted the law because there was no such area in the entire county.

As for the law about IDs, I have a question: Does a sex offender transporting his or her children around need to have on their person at all times documented proof that they have the right to be in the presence of their own offspring?

I only feel sorry for those who were labeled 'sex offender' when they turned barely legal and their bf/gf was 15 or 16.

Obviously, for the heinous and serial sex offenders, it's a must.

Thank you for your post MSLGW! I agree. You said what I am unable to articulate on this very important subject.

What about rapists that rape adult women? We seem to let them go in high rates as well? Will they get a mark on their license? Okay, so what if this rapist were in a car with a woman an pulled over by police, should the police warn the woman of who she is with?

This law seems like it is going to cause more trouble than help. MSLGW I agree with you, it is sad more people don't understand the nature of crimes, laws and justice.

Hartsfull I appreciate your comments very much. I've been studying these topics for about a solid year now and have become an activist for laws that actually protect. The Adam Walsh Act and Jessica's Law, in my opinion do great harm to society. They cost Billions and really don't deliver. Everyone is painted with the same brush and the level three's High Risk should only have high risk but as they stand, the larger percentage in any state is on level 3. Including Ricky which was a conceptual teen sex where the girl lied to Ricky and even was in a teen establishment where admission was 16 and older.
I know Ricky's mother and just got off the phone with her. I'm going to send her a link to this site and ask her to join. cfcoklahoma.com is my site but when I post the site please don't get the idea that I'm spamming. I only use it for educational purposes and there about 25 other links to sites where there are stockpiles of information, both scientific data and empirical information. Some of them are from sex offender support systems etc, but judge by the content and context not emotional prejudging. It takes objective and critical thinking.

I'll get off now and e-mail Mary to join

I made it back, I e-mailed Mary, hope she joins.
There is another point I would like to comment on Hartsfull made and that was "Any sex offender as far as PEDIFILE, isn't deserving of a second chance as far as I'm concerned."
While I totally understand your statement because at one time that was exactly mine.
Of all those on the registries, pedophiles make up only around a very small percentage. Pedophilia IS treatable with a 50% success rate. However, not everyone who ever touched a child suffers from pedophilia. The vast majority of registered sex offenders knew their victims and the majority of them are family members or someone known to the family. The recidivist rate for these individuals as first time sex offense is around 1%. Yet 90 plus percent of all new sex crimes are committed by individuals NOT on the registry and 90% of them are family members or known to the family. Now to my way of thinking and facts bring that out. And according to Gus Blackwell, Republican Majority Whip, Oklahoma, "The Predators" are hiding in the registry. Those who need to be monitored are certainly those who did not know their victims, repeat offenders and violent offenders. Now, that would be the minority of those on the registry. probably around 8 to 10 percent.
Randy Lopp says, "some of those who are on the front lines dealing with sex offenders believe that Oklahoma's law is having an adverse effect and needs further changes.

''Most people who know anything about this are frustrated. It is just not helpful -- the laws as they are now,'' said Randy Lopp, treatment subcommittee chairman of the Oklahoma Sex Offender Management Team.

Lopp is also a member of the review board established by the new law to categorize the sex offenders into three levels.

''I think if the general public understood the research, they would be willing to back the legislators to change the laws to make more sense and to protect children, because the laws as they are written are not protecting children," he said. "They are doing more harm than good.''

I don't mean to be posting too much but this release just came through my mail and I thought some here would appreciate hearing from someone who is standing up for what is right.

Fallon Campaign: Sex offender law makes children less safe - Fallon was right!
5/28/2008

Contact: Stacy Brenton
(515) 822-3029
stacy@fallonforcongress.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 28, 2008, (1:30 PM CDT) - Yesterday, The Des Moines Register praised Ed Fallon for his 2002 vote against a bill that prohibited sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools or day care centers. The Register said, "… he was frequently on the right side of issues…. He was the only House member to vote against the 2,000-foot residency restriction for certain sex offenders, a law that virtually banished them from many communities, making them harder to track, while driving up costs for law enforcement."
http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=127252
Coincidentally, voters in the Third District received a mailing yesterday asking them "Why does Ed Fallon think it's ok for sex offenders to live near schools?" As a backdrop, it included a photo of a prisoner in an orange jumpsuit looking though a fence at children in a playground. The mailer was sent by Boswell supporter Richard (Red) Brannan of Ankeny and had no return address.

Fallon said, "This is an example of cynical, negative politics. This mailer was sent out only a week before the election to make it look as if I support sex offenders. I call on Congressman Boswell to reject and renounce this misinformation and ask his supporters to cease their efforts to disparage my character and reputation."

Fallon says he voted against the bill because, "I knew that it would only make matters worse." He has been proven right.

Today, prosecutors, sheriffs, police and those who work with victims of sexual abuse agree that the bill was a mistake. The Iowa County Attorneys Association opposes the bill and acknowledges, "The research shows that there is no correlation between residency restrictions and reducing sex offenses against children or improving the safety of children." Scott County prosecutor Bill Davis put it clearly when he said of the law, "It's the wrong path. It doesn't make anyone safe…." Common sense tells you why. The law doesn't keep sex offenders from visiting schools, as the mailer depicts; it doesn't restrict their movements at all.

In fact, most agree it has actually made children less safe. According to the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault, since the law went into effect, the number of sex offenders that the system has lost track of has more than doubled.

State representative and retired state trooper, Clel Baulder said, "The residency restriction was passed on emotion and emotion has no intelligence."

"I opposed a bill that is now generally agreed to be a mistake - by prosecutors, sheriffs, police, lawmakers who supported it at the time, and those who work with the victims of sexual assault," concluded Fallon.

MSLGW is such an asset to this thread! About the law she mentioned that restricts where sex offenders can live...

1) It doesn't prevent them from getting in their car and driving to a school, parking by a school, loitering in a park, attending religious functions, etc. (As an aside, laws that prohibit "loitering where children gather" are absurd.)

2) If laws restricting where convicted sex offenders may reside make it more difficult for them to find housing, more of them will become HOMELESS and therefore off the grid. Homelessness is positively correlated to mental illness, that is, those with severe mental illnesses are more likely to become homeless, and those who are homeless are at greater risk of developing mental illness.

Iowa sheriffs, prosecutors and many other organizations have been asking politicians to appeal the residency laws and the politicians refuse claiming if they do they will lose votes. No residency law will keep any child safe cause if a real predator wants a child they will not care what the laws are period. And in many cases they are put so far out in the rural areas its harder for law enforcement and the people to keep a closer eye on them.

Then when the law has to watch offenders, such as Ricky, it allows them less time ot be actively watching those who are determined to be a threat to children.

Mary
www.rickyslife.com

Those who see the facts behind residency laws in Iowa there is a top dog of the offender laws which are passed and his name is Keith Kreiman. His email info is: keith.kreiman@legis.state.ia.us

We have been in contact and he seems to want to fix the laws which are causing more harm then good but he does fear the backlash of the people.

A great report to read is hrw.org

Mary
http://www.rickyslife.com

Hi, thank you MSLGW for bringing me here. Its important for all families to take my son's story and educate your teens or friends teens. Ricky was 16 and met a girl at a Iowa teen club for sixteen to twenty year olds and she told him she was almost sixteen. Weeks later he was questioned by police and told the truth in which then he was informed the young lady was truly only thirteen. She admitted she lied but due to age of consent laws he had no defense. When we moved to Oklahoma they changed his charge to aggravated due to the three year age difference and now he is a tier three predator status.

Oklahoma has passed SB 35 which requires all aggravated foffenders to get a driver license with the word bright bold red sex offender on top of the license at the bottom and on the back. Extreme?? Ricky is horrified knowing folks will see it and stare or worse. He fears he will be treated like a horrible monster and harassed.

We must change laws cause as Gus Blackwell tol dme on May 1 that the predators are hiding in the registry. Why? Cause kids like my son are there and determined to be no threat and yet law enforcement must actiely watch him taking valuable time and resources.

Please take Rickys story and educate teens so we together can save a childs life.

http://www.rickyslife.com

Thank you for caring and also on the site I have a petition to pass laws to fix this for romeo and Juliet cases.

Mary

Hi Citizen Sugar, MSLGW and particularly Ricky's Mom.
I don't know how I just found this site, but I had to sign up just to say to Ricky's Mom that I really feel for you.
I would also sign your petition gladly, but I'm not a citizen of the US so there would be little point.
A similar devastating effect of over reaction to those labelled 'sex offenders' happened to someone very close to me who lives in the UK.
The whole family's life has been shattered as a result.
Ricky's Mom, your website http://www.rickyslife.com/ has made me cry tears of frustration.
I so wish that Ricky gets justice over this.

MSLGW, No worries about posting a lot or repete posting. A lot of us (me especially) do it all the time.

I understand your point. I just can't find it in me to go against Jesicas Law, Adam Walsh etc. I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who harms children. Sorry there is no second chance for me. As far as someone who takes innocence away from children and they (the victims) live with that forever.

That does not include teenagers with other teenagers under 16 or not. Or even it were a 20 yo and a 14 yo. That would be scary as a parent definately but that's beside the point. I completely totally emphaticlly agree that statutory rape laws are definately wrong. They should never be put on some heinous list as if they are the same as someone who is a grown man going after a 4 year old. I agree that the SO list is very flawed and misleading (I look at it all the time even for my small area) because there is nothing there to show how much of a threat someone is. I look at it myself to be aware of who's around. Although some don't ever register so it is possible I could have one live close by (close to me, here is like a mile away, very rural area) and never know. However, I would rather have some sort of warning. For me though I DO take in account that the person named could have just had 15 year old girlfriend, that's easy to wonder when the person is listed as 20 yo male. However, again maybe he was a violent predator at a young age. It is very flawed because one doesn't know. One thing though, and I realize this isn't much to relieve anyone but they do get off of it for registering faithfully and not getting into any other trouble, basically they get off of it for good behavior.

As far as rehabilitating pedophiles, 50% is a small number. It's a childs life destroyed.

We can agree to disagree. I can see your points and see why you would believe in that so much. I just cannot agree with all of it.

But some I do.

I had something else to say but I can't remember now.

I have to be with my very upset son now.

I have a 2 and half yo who really wants my attention. It's hard for me to be careful of grammar and spellign etc. So, sorry about any errors. I have to write fast most of the time.

For those people who are arguing from the point of a former sex offender, you should watch the film "Daddy's Little Girls" and see the shoe on the other foot.

Well I for one am not arguing on the part of the sex offender.
My argument is that the label of 'sex offender' ought to be applied correctly, because to label those, like Ricky, as 'sex offenders' when that term is associated with rapists and paedophiles is wrong.

As Ricky's mom said above, while targetting people like her son, the forces of law and order are being spread too thin to cope with watching those who really do intend to harm children.

Hi Guys, I'm in a hurry but thought I would drop this Petition off. Gotta run

Read and sign this petition if you agree with it, even if you do not live in Ohio...

http://www.petitiononline.com/oh08/petition.html

Quote
To: U.S. Congress, President of the United States, Ohio State Congress

While understanding the importance of protecting our nation's children against any sexual or physical assault, and while understanding that there is a wide spectrum of sex offenses beyond the highly publicized and relatively rare violent sexual assaults on children.....

In response to the Federal "Adam Walsh Act" and the Ohio "Senate Bill 10", we, the undersigned, forcefully state the following:

1. State funding for this Federal Act has not been established nor appropriated, nor have the federal mandated requirements of this bill been established.

2. The Ohio Legislature passed Senate Bill 10 in an reactionary manner in order to gain federal funds without responsibly hearing or considering public objection to this legislation. Nor has the Ohio Legislature responsibly studied the contents nor impact of this legislation.

3. Ohio Senate Bill 10 violates the ex post facto, double jeopardy, and separation of powers provisions of the Ohio Constitution and the United States Constitution. And constitutes breach of contract of original pleas of an offender.

4. Retroactive punishment of any criminal offender is a violation of State and US Constitutional Rights, relating to Ex Post Facto provisions.

5. Universal re-classification of sex offenders into federal mandated tiers without the individual review before a court of law and judge is a violation of the Separation of Powers provision of the Ohio and United States Constitutions.

6. Instating additional punishment and restriction on offenders who committed crimes up to 10 years or more ago, and after they have satisfied all legal consequences of their offense, is a violation of Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto provisions of the Ohio and United States Constitutional Rights.

7. That the Ohio Adam Walsh Law is an irresponsible and seriously flawed piece of legislation which should be revoked immediately, as it has already been illegally enforced beginning January 1, 2008.

8. That the Federal Adam Walsh Act is an irresponsible and seriously flawed piece of legislation which should be revoked immediately, as it has pressured states to react in a way to enact legislation which violates the United States Constitutional Rights of US citizens.

9. That Ohio Legislators who allowed this legislation to pass into law in a reactionary and irresponsible manner should be forced to resign immediately and be held accountable for their actions in any legal manner which applies.

10. That State, County and Local elected officials and employees who enacted the provisions and requirements of this unconstitutional law be likewise held accountable for their support, enacting, or defense of this law, as it violates the Ohio and United States Constitutional rights of citizens.

We, as citizens of this State and Nation forcefully state the above from the elected officials who serve as a privilege and at the pleasure of us.... the citizens.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Hi Hartsful

I completely agree we must change the laws for the juveniles and I actually lost friends when I defended Mark Lunsford son Joshua Lunsford from Ohio when he got in trouble for a sex crime last year. I fought like a wild tiger against many who thought he should register like my son but he was eighteen a kid still in my opinion. His dad Mark the founder of Jessica law said it was Romeo and Juliet yet sadly once his son was free of a registration requirement he has dropped teh subject and not a word for the other boys like my sn ricky. Now he continues to push Jessica's law and this daily effects thousands of juveniles/youth like Ricky. I hope all will visit our site and sign my petition and pray Mark will start asking laws to be fixed for myson since there is a federal bill.

http://www.rickyslife.com

Mary

Hi Zania:) Thank you for caring I actually have several signatures from people in other countries. Anyone who like to write me can do so at my email rickyslife@windstream.net

This has been tough on Ricky and my youngest son who cannot have friends over and asked all the time why is your brother a sex offender? or who did he rape? Its been heck on us and I continue to fight for all our son's but especially my own.

I do updates on my myspace blog you can use the email above to search for me and join to read other stories of teens.

In that case I will go right over and sign your petition right now.
http://www.citizensugar.com/user/rickyslife
I've posted a message on a couple of my blogs about it too. The blogs are quite new and do not have many readers as yet, but if it helps to spread the word about what has happened to Ricky and others like him, then I'm more than happy to pass the message on about this in any way I can.
Take care
zania

doesn't bother me.

I wish to thank all of those who have PM'd and e-mailed me. Yourds of encouragement mean the world to me.
I just finished writing this piece. I beleive it is valuable in understanding the whole picture.

"Most people are very unaware that more than 90% of all sex crimes against children are committed in the home and incest related. 80% of incest crimes go unreported. Bill O Reilly will not tell you that.
The entertainment news media promotes bogus pictures concerning "stranger danger," "pedophilia" and "predator". They sensationalize for "RATINGS"! as well as self aggrandizement.
5% or less of all sex crimes are of the "predator/stranger danger". And Law enforcement does a great job of catching those individuals.
Politicians in this environment are quick to jump on this bandwagon for votes. They totally ignore all the facts and pass laws that actually endanger children.
Incest is NOT pedophilia. These is a vast difference. You won't hear that on the news or from politicians either.
Recidivist rates for incest related offenses are between 1 & 2 percent and that is without treatment. Once caught the abusers wake up. Treatment reduces the recidivist rate for that 1 to 2 percent by 50%. Treatment works.
The stranger/pedophile recidivist rate (70%), is what the news media and politicians apply to everyone. Including teens and children as young as 10 years old are put on the public registries and labeled with the same broad brush.
There are 60 MILLION individuals in this country who have been molested in an incest related abuse. With this type being 80% NOT reported. That leaves 1-1/2 MILLION victims with 30 MILLION, 50% will go on to abuse a family member.
We all need to understand the facts if we are going to have an impact on Child sexual abuse.
This is a community problem. The fear factor with the treatment centers is bogus. Residency restrictions and public registration protects no one and in fact endangers children.
If you go to my site, please look at the top article "Incest - A Family Tragedy" click on "Read More" and the link to Shazzam films and PLEASE listen to the blogtalkradio.
www.cfcoklahoma.com

There is a huge difference

just a little rant letter
1 Tuesday, 19 August 2008 20:19
Linda
Broken lives, broken homes, broken families. How could this occur in America? How can we, as a people, condone abuse? I'm speaking, of course, about the latest big problem in America: Sex offenders.

Sex offenders have become the latest political hot button. One can distract a detractor from nearly anything by invoking that specter of child abuse.. but is it really what we think it is? Are we buying our 'security' at the expense of all our freedoms, and gaining nothing at all? We talk of protecting our children, but what of the children of the offender? Some would claim that offenders have no right to family, no right to love, no right to live, even.

Are they not still human? Are their partners, their children still human? Think well before you answer this in the negative, as soon as any man can be said to be inhuman, and his rights and freedoms restricted by writ, all men can be.

But is this the work of a just and fair society? Indeed, what is perceived as a sex offense is not just and fair, but should we abuse to prevent abuse? Should we torture to prevent torture, murder to prevent murder?

This is what the sex offender laws lead to... since we have no right to police protection, and must police ourselves, would not an honest man justify many things in the name of protection? If such a man were to commit acts of vigilante 'justice', could he not claim he was condoned in such by the government itself? When we wrap a people, any people, for any reason in a label where they may be targeted, are we not, indeed, creating a situation where people will be targeted?

There is no fairness, in this world, nor in many cases recourse, but we ask, and demand only one thing, the right to be human. Should that right be denied, by any man, to any man, then the denier is guilty of fostering tyranny and slavery. We are a country based upon the rights and freedoms of men, based upon the ideal that all men are created equal, and that includes all of humanity, all genders, all colors, all creeds in the 'human'.

When you children cry out in the night, do you not fear for their safety? When the child of a sex offender cries in the night, who hears? When they sit at the schools, and are tormented, not for anything they have done, but the perception of what a family member has done, is that fair or just? Should they be torn from their homes, does that not deny their rights?

What have they done to deserve such a torment? How is this just or fair, that people judge them, judge their family, and judge their very existence, not even for their own acts? How is it fair that same law destroys those children, forever, in the name of their own protection? How is it just or fair that children are labeled as molesters and rapists, in many cases, simply for having a teenage relationship?

Is this the part of a wise and just government? Is it truly protection? Think about it. Look at the department of justice statistics. The greatest number of those approached by police officers, charged, and convicted of 'sex offenses' are between fourteen and eighteen. The ratio decreases over time.

And the greatest part of new sex offenses comes from those not on the registry. What protects you from those? Is it the destruction you visit upon those on the registry? Is it the vigilantes that call friends, neighbors, jobs? Is it forcing those on the registry from their homes, upsetting family situations, repealing the rulings of judges to place new trials upon them, trials, not by the court or by juristic right, but by the legislature without reviewing any kind of information on the offense or the situation surrounding it?

We, the people, of the united states, includes all the people. Young and old, rich and poor, felons, citizens, legislators, and even presidents and those that live on the edges of society.

How is it just or reasonable to press more, however, to those edges of society? How is such power for the protection of others, when it forces people into situations where no man can see hope, and where justice is a fading memory in the daily trials of survival?

Is a label such a good thing to give a man? Should a man rebuild his life from the ground up, and then be destroyed again, not for a new offense, but for being judged guilty of a future offense which may never occur?

That, friends, is the future you're creating... a future of guilt until proven innocence. A future of no rights, of no hope, of no security. When all are registered, who can say what the registry will be used for? Nobody will protect the children then... nobody can... for when the rights of any are limited, and the freedoms taken by writ... all freedoms have fallen, and all rights will be restricted.

(just a little rant letter I was working on)

Triedbyconscience

Who commits most sex crimes? Well, 95% of all new sex crimes are committed by those NOT on the registry. Family members and those known to the family commit 98% of all sex crimes. So much for stranger danger.
2nd question. Who is MORE LIKELY to committ a sex crime upon release from prison? Sex Offenders or NON-sex offenders?

For the answer, go here. www.cfcoklahoma.org and see the article, "Revisiting Department of Justice Recidivism Statistics and More Shocking Truths."

I wish more threads like this would be started.

Anyway, it's Halloween and time to scare the hell out of the public. Fear mongering at this time of the year is heightened and it's election time on top of it.

A little blog where I debated with, Kevin Fischer, an award-winning veteran broadcaster who has been seen and heard on Milwaukee TV and radio stations for nearly three decades.
Kevin, who is a legislative aide to state Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin).

Read the thread and spread the word.

http://www.cfcoklahoma.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=...

Very nice site!

In a way i agree and disagree. I'm married to a sex offender, and the the mark is a good idea that few states haven't caught on. Like in Oklahoma its written when it can be seen visible on a id or driver's license. My husband has a underage girl-friend that was 14 and he was 18 they found out she was pregant so with the consent of both parents they moved her in with him, the next thing he knew they were arresting him telling him that he was being charged with rape in the second degree. But now his family has to suffer with his mistake he had 5 years ago. In my opion those who are sick pedophiles should have something more than a little tag on their id's and driver license's. But people who do what the generation now does dating someone younger than them shouldn't have do follow such laws that group them with the scum like the pedophiles