Reasons NOT to support a tiered registry, or ANY registry period

Despite what some of you may think, I haven't had much of a problem with Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL). I'm not exactly a great fan of certain people in it, just as some of you are not great fans of mine, but  we all have opinions. My opinions are my own. I joined their Oakland protest, obviously, have their conference up on my main website as requested, and I refer anyone who contacts me in California to go check them out. No one can claim I haven't offered my support in the past. But I certainly won't offer support to their latest harebrained scheme. 

In light of one of ACSOL's most recent posts, I have to speak up because I feel this approach is compromising the Anti-Registry Movement. Some of you are already aware of my criticism of ACSOL. In fact, I've posted it in the comment boards, and it seems that quite a few people share my sentiment. I am wary of the idea of our movement supporting the registry in ANY form. Allow me to say this as clearly and boldly as possible, so that there is no misunderstanding as to my take on this silly idea of backing a tiered registry scheme:

If you are advocating for a tiered registry, YOU ARE ADVOCATING FOR THE REGISTRY!!!!!

It seems ACSOL is still advocating this Sophie's Choice approach to the issue, so may be best if I make my counterpoints to the points ACSOL posted on their site as reasons to support a tiered registry. [NOTE: The numbering system is mine for the sake of reference.]

http://all4consolaws.org/2017/02/janices-journal-tiered-registry-bill-could-help-more-than-90-percent-of-registrants/

REASONS TO SUPPORT A TIERED REGISTRY

1. Tiered registry bill (Senate Bill 695) introduced on Feb. 17; Senators Ricardo Lara and Holly Mitchell authors; Bill supported by CA Sex Offender Management Board

Counterpoint: Why should the fact that CASOMB approves of a tiered registry be a valid reason to support it? Other things CASOMB approves of are polygraphs, the "containment model" of registrant management, and a "victim-centered" approach. The CASOMB sure loves their junk science. Maybe someday they'll support witch dunking and tea leaf gazing as acceptable methods for predicting recidivism too. 

Guess what else they advocate? The SARATSO committee. They chose the Static-99R as their preferred test and that's a really big deal.

The old Static 99 and Static 2002 categorized risk like this: "Based on total scores, Static-99 had four named risk categories (0 –1  low; 2–3  low-moderate; 4 – 5 moderate-high; and 6  high) and Static-2002 had five (0 –2  low; 3– 4  low-moderate; 5– 6 moderate; 7– 8  moderate-high; and 9  high). When the scales were revised, we did not alter the risk category labels or their associated cutoff scores, with the exception that it was now possible to have scores less than zero." [p.3]

But this same scale was revised under the Static 99-R: "New names have been announced for the risk categories on the Static-99R: 

Very Low Risk, Category I, scores -3, -2; 

Below Average Risk, Category II, scores -1, 0; 

Average Risk, Category III, scores 1, 2, 3; 

Above Average Risk, Category IV-a, scores 4,5; 

Well Above Average Risk, Category IV-b, scores 6 and above."

A person could be classified higher risk under this convoluted scheme. But hey, lets support it just because CASOMB says so. 

2. "Current registry provides public with 'False Sense of Security'"

I could say the same thing about the 45 states with a tiered registry (Oregon hasn't transitioned to three tiers yet so they don't count.). 

3. "More than 90 percent of those who assault a child are family members, teachers, coaches, clergy and are NOT on sex offender registry."

The inefficacy of the registry just as valid of an argument for not having a registry of any kind. 

4. "Less than 1 percent of sex offenders on parole commit another sex offense – CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation; Only 5.3 percent of all sex offenders commit another sex offense – U.S. DOJ"

Again, the same argument can be used to argue abolition of the registry. Also, the DoJ numbers are misused. The exact number is 5.3% rearrest rate after 3 years, but only 3.5% were reconvicted after three years. That's quite a discrepancy. BTW, the DoJ released more recent numbers that found a 5.6% rearrest rate after 5 years, so you could mention the fact that the overall number of arrests only increased 0.3% in years 4 and 5. 

5. "Tiered registry for sex offenders would increase public safety and save $115 million annually for state and local governments."

I love these rather arbitrary numbers but it seems Oregon, the state currently transitioning to a tiered system and whose sex offender management folks share similar beliefs, is having some growing pains trying to make that transition. They're already having to scale it back two years, and already lawmakers are exploiting this opportunity to increase the number of folks who land on the public registry. I can't imagine those reevaluations are saving money in Oregon. 

If you are going to discuss money, perhaps someone in Cali will bring up all that money they missed out not adopting the Adam Walsh Act, and if they're going three tiers, why not just adopt the AWA and screw all those risk assessments? On the other hand, at least those witch doctors pushing polys and peter meters will be out of a job. 

6. "The registry includes many individuals who pose little threat to society such as those convicted of the non-violent crimes of “sexting” on a cell phone, urinating in public, and engaging in consensual teen sex."

Yup, and most of them live in those 45 states with a tiered system. Just saying...

7. The registry also includes individuals who pose significant threat to society such as those convicted of multiple sexual assaults against children and adults.

See above. Also, do you know why I made the type bigger, underlined it and italicized it? Because the victim cult will zero in on this for future reference. You know, for when they want to strengthen the registry. I'm sure nothing satisfies our adversaries more than quoting us acknowledging their claims. Tust me, this will be the only thing they hear. 

8. "Tiered registries exist in 46 of the nation’s 50 states and successfully protect the citizens of those states. California is only 1 of 4 states with lifetime registries along with Alabama, South Carolina and Florida."

For any serious registry reformist to utter the words, "successfully protect the citizens of those states," in regards to the effects of the registry is pure blasphemy. Is California that desperate to "potentially" remove a few folks off the registry that they are willing to spew the same rhetoric that we've spent years debunking? It has been a central theme of anti-registry reformists to expose the fallacies of the registry, particularly efficacy, and ACSOL comes along and says, "tiered registries are effective at protecting children." WTF? 

No, the registry in every state is a complete disaster. Ohio has had a Tiered system since 1997 and it is an even bigger wreck because of the AWA. 

9. "Tiered registry would end a life-time sentence for registrants who do NOT pose current harm to society." 

That is merely an assumption. Risk assessments are far from perfect as they are prone to overestimate risk. Consider that even under the simplistic Static-99 your traditional R&J offender scores a 2 off the top. (Coincidentally, I also scored a two.) In Ohio pre-AWA, risk assessment evaluations could still be disregarded through judicial discretion. (Trust me, I've experienced this travesty of justice firsthand.) Of course, when the AWA was adopted, the number of folks who were classified high risk skyrocketed from about 18% to about 54%. Nothing changed but the method of classification. 

The very definitions of offenses are problematic. An R&J "sexually assaulted" his willing participant because she was below the age of consent, and therefore a "violent" offense. 

I'm also willing to bet some high risk individuals "slip through the cracks" and reoffend and then there will be a push for more 

10. Registrants often lose their jobs and/or housing solely because they are registrants.  Section 8 housing not available to individuals listed on a lifetime registry (like California).

Those Tier 3s that remain will still have the same problem with Section 8. Registrants will continue to suffer regardless of tier level. Criminal records remain after you drop off the registry. Background checks will pick it up. 

I had some interesting results from last year's Job and Welfare Survey in regards to tier levels. I do have my concerns because the survey results indicated an increased probability of negative effects of being classified as a "high risk." 

Tier Levels: While there is surprisingly little parity between the Tiers (or for states with no tier system), those considered “High Risk” or Tier 3s were most likely to report being unemployed/ not in the labor force, living in a rural area, making over $50,000 last year, being denied a job, being on welfare at some point, and identifying as an anti-registrant activist, but least likely to report being homeless, having a full time job, living in poverty, and being harassed on the job.

11. Some registrants are physically harmed, even murdered, by vigilantes.

Gary Blanton, the man from Port Angeles murdered by vigilante Patrick Drum in 2012, was classified as a Tier 2 registrant in Washington state. The 2005 double murders in Washington state, the 2006 double murders in Maine and hundreds of other reported acts of vigilantism were in tiered registry states. 

Washington state doesn't list registrants publicly, but private citizens like Donna Zink fought to post the names anyways. Then you have private online registries like Family Watchdog and Homefacts, mugshot magazines and websites, extortion websites like Chuck Rodrick's Offendex/ SOR ARchives/ BarComplaint/ SexOffenderNewswire and affiliated websites, and the like. 

12. "All individuals required to register under Penal Code Section 290 would remain on the registry for at least 10 years; Those convicted of low level offenses could leave registry in 10 years; Those convicted of moderate level offenses could leave registry in 20 years." 

That's not to say they can't be reclassified. One way would simply be adopting the Adam Walsh Act. Another way would be to do what NY has done-- move the goalposts. In 2006, NY increased registration period of tier 2s to life with a petition process available after 30 years and tier 1s increased registration from 10 years to 20. Now the state is looking to do it again, raising tier 1 registration from 20 year to 30 years, an effort spearheaded by Parents For Megan's Law. As I previously stated in point #5, Oregon is already seeking ways to increase 

13. A tiered registry would continue life-time registration for those who pose a current significant harm to society.

This is similar to point #9. This line of thinking requires us to assume that the state will somehow get it right and reserve Tier 3 status for repeat offenders with multiple victims; however, the state will err on the side of caution lest they have any bad PR like the state of Florida had after the Sun-Sentinel accused the state of missing too many "sex predators" in the months following the Cherish Perrywinkle case

In ACSOL's push to POTENTIALLY get off the registry, (no guarantee even one is removed), they're willing to throw tens of thousands of people under the bus! It is already having a detrimental effect on morale in the movement, and already the attitude is spreading. Here is one comment posted on the ACSOL comment section:

Aero1

February 19, 2017

A lot of people are not going to like this comment but I don’t care all the people who know they’re going to be labeled a tier 3 registered citizen if this Bill were to pass your the type of registered citizens I’m trying to keep from being labeled with no offense but tier 3 registrant are the ones that make it hard for everybody else with there multiple convictions and God knows what else I’m a father and I have three kids and I wouldn’t feel safe with them not being publicly displayed Megan’s Law website and if and eighteen-year-old guy hooks up with a fifteen-year-old girlfriend in high school I don’t think he should be on there for the rest of his life maybe 10 20 years okay for Life that’s insane

This idiot already assumes that Tier 3 equals multiple convictions; he sounds just like a shill for the victim cult. I am happy someone pointed out his flaws in thinking:

judgmental much?

February 19, 2017

To correct you, it will still be very much possible to fall into Tier 3 as a first time offender w/ no other criminal history. All you would need is a high enough Static 99 score. Things like being young at the time of a crime and release, being homosexual and having a male victim, having a non violent offense (oddly enough) and not having lived w/ a significant other for a minimum of 2 yrs. are enough to get someone enough points to fall into Tier 3 regardless of crime. The Static doesn’t take into account offense free years after conviction, therapy, remorse, etc.

I don't have multiple victims and I have the most petty of contact offenses, yet I landed as a Tier 3 because the judge believed all registrants have a high risk. I scored a 2 on the Static-99 (should've been a 1) but the judge ignored it and made an assumption that I came to Ohio just to shirk registration duties (a belief as absurd as anything else I criticized here). The bottom line is I got labelled a Tier 3 because a judge with prejudices against registered citizens had the discretion to be the final authority on my fate, and he chose to ruin my live. So Judge Steve Martin can go to hell. If you don't believe Tier 3s get it rough, come talk to me some time. My life has been ruined. 

In summary, I find the strategy of ACSOL to be repugnant to the core beliefs of the Anti-Registry Movement. We aren't here to advocate for any registry. Sadly, some folks have allowed defeatism to get in the way of our mission. What if slavery abolitionists took this "incremental" approach to abolishing slavery? "Okay we'll never abolish slavery outright so lets devise a system by which a select few can earn their freedom while the rest have to work harder." There are times where incrementalism just doesn't work. The real solution is abolishing the registry, but defeatism has forced those in Cali to choose who will be sacrificed to save a precious few to get off the registry. Those people sacrificed will suffer MORE. 

Three JEERS for ACSOL's three tiers. 

--Derek W. Logue of OnceFallen.com

From Megan's Law to Mug Shot Magazines: Citizen involvement in the growing police state

Many Americans are in a constant fear of a "police state." This concept is not new. In the 1930s, the Nazis epitomized the police state. In fact, we still refer to overbearing police as "Gestapo." Powerful as the Gestapo was, they were not large enough to act alone; around 70% of the arrests made by the Gestapo were initiated by the tips or information of the general public. The Nazis employed propaganda to influence the people, and the people in turn, played a major role in sending millions to their deaths in concentration camps.

America is slowly becoming a similar police state. But just like the Nazi era, the police is not the only concern. This generation has done the same. We are a nation of nanny cams, background checks, and a growing number of public pillories known as "registries". Right now meth maker registries, domestic violence registries, and animal abuser either on the books are in the process of creation. Hell, we even have registries for your dog!

Bad Dog, Go Register!

But even that is not enough. Someone has decided that taking mug shots and putting them in a newspaper format and selling them is a great business opportunity. Somewhere along the way, we've turned the criminal justice system into the next spectator sport:

Someone should make a rag with pics of those who sell this crap

http://www.kypost.com/dpps/news/the-newest-tabloid-craze-mug-shots_7554544

Imagine going to the Internet to search your name only to find a mug shot from years ago posted on multiple websites. There are publications and websites whose sole purpose is to feature police booking photos. Some make a profit selling advertising around the photos, while other websites are offering, for a price, to remove or hide these images permanently. *****  McMahon learned about the mug shot business the hard way.

In 2003, McMahon woke up one morning covered in blood, with stab wounds and evicted from his home. McMahon was fired from his job and slept in a gas station bathroom that night. McMahon knew his life was in need of a change. At the time, the then-bartender was dealing with the deaths of his best friend and sister within months of each other, along with a family history of drug abuse. McMahon started using cocaine at age 12 and lived in a drug-induced haze until he was 23. During those tumultuous years, McMahon was arrested several times, including two instances for driving under the influence of alcohol.

These days, McMahon is a happily married, churchgoing father who works at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. His wife, ***** McMahon, is a part-time student at the University of Georgia earning a master's in social work. When they're not working, life for the McMahons revolves around their 2-year-old daughter, ******. It is a much different existence than McMahon once had.

Congratulations are in order. This man turned his life around, rehabilitated, cleaned up his act, etc. He's a happily married man with a wife and kid, works hard, and even goes to church. Who would want to mess that up? Enter the Mug Shot Magazine Business:

As part of his recovery, McMahon went to the Internet to check his online image after he read that employers use Google to search the names of potential employees. Having served the time for his crimes, McMahon was shocked to find his mug shot still posted on a website along with others. He contacted the site to have the image removed. He paid a another site to have the mug shot removed only to see his photo show up in four other places. "It's like killing one flea and then saying, 'OK the flea problem is done,'" McMahon said. His frustration built when he contacted the website Reputation.com, which said for $7,500 it could not get rid of his image, but could "bury" it in Internet purgatory.

McMahon is not alone in finding his murky past displayed for the public.

So you not only have a business that posts your mug shot, no matter how old it is, but for a high price, you can pay to have it removed. But then it shows up elsewhere, because now that you have paid one site, other sites know you are willing to pay. It is like the South Park "Underpants Gnome" equation, only instead of collect underpants, someone collected mug shots, and they found that missing step to turn mug shots into profit.

I'm pretty sure a phase 2 involves something illegal.

Yes, I went there. 

Caught Up is a Tennessee-based weekly that dubs itself a "crime-fighting publication." It features police booking photos. Found primarily in smaller communities throughout Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, and Kentucky, the publication showcases people's names and alleged crimes listed below their mug shots. Caught Up and other similar papers collect mug shots, which are public record, from sheriffs and local police departments, who hand over the information with the names listed in alphabetical order, detailing the criminal charges. These photos are also featured and archived on the publication's website caughtuplive.com...

"Sometimes I say I'm the most popular woman of the small counties because police departments are so grateful," said Lori Broderick, the media liaison for Caught Up. Broderick is involved in the publication of every paper, which puts out more than 25,000 copies weekly. Broderick, who is also a paralegal, joined the Caught Up team in December 2010. She feels the mission of the paper is to give people the ability to keep an eye on their communities.

Well in the interest of fairness, I will post a link to Lori Broderick's Facebook page here in case any one is interested in suing her. So if they are putting out 25k+ copies per week at a dollar a pop, and assuming they are making at least a 50 cent profit ($12,500 weekly), then they are racking up $650,000 per year. That is a lot of dollar rags. 

The flip side is how the publication affects the people showcased. Broderick recalled a man who was a sex offender and had finished serving his sentence. The man was trying to rejoin the community but felt he couldn't with his mug shot in the paper and online. Broderick said she and her team discussed the issue, but ultimately felt their need to inform was more important than helping the man overcome his past.

"When you're talking about the safety of the community and the safety of children and seeing as how these are already public records, we just made the determination that it was in the best interest of the public to have this information available," Broderick said. "The lack of knowledge was not a chance that we were ready to take."

Here we get to the meat of the issue. The paper really should have said "their need to publicly humiliate in order to sell papers was more important than helping the man overcome his past. In other words, increasing the likelihood of recidivism is LESS important than selling papers. 

Mug shots: Informative vs. slander?

Caught Up consists mostly of mug shots with a few related written pieces and various games that it calls "informative fun." There also is some local advertising. Caught Up Vice President Geoffrey Bar-Lev said in today's economy the profit margin for this business is relatively low. However, the demand for the publication in smaller communities has remained the same. The business makes money even if the lives of the people who make up its content have changed, which leaves someone like McMahon out of luck.

Again, I broke down the profit margin. What is disturbing is Caught Up calls this "informative fun." So what can you do about it?

Several clients have asked Kavan Singh-Grover, an Atlanta-based criminal defense attorney, about removing their mug shots from the sites and about what legal action can be taken. "They are using a person's image for commercial gain without their permission," said Singh-Grover. "To me, its extortion, maybe not legally, but the common use of that term." Singh-Grover said legally, there is nothing that can be done. The only thing that could stop the publications and websites is legislation that forbids them. That legislation does not exist.

That legislation NEEDS to exist. That being said, I'd argue False Light and misusing my image. And yes, these papers have been sued in the past, HERE and also HERE. 

Caught Up's Broderick said she understands the concerns and said other publications might have a lower standard, but their purpose is to encourage safety in communities, not promote public humiliation. "People think we are in the business to mock," Broderick said. "They believe that we have photos of a person who has been arrested to allow the community to thumb their nose at and that's not our purpose. If people find some of the mug shots amusing, that's more or less a side effect." McMahon isn't laughing.

Oh, really?

It is hard to claim that when all the mug shot papers' web pages resemble this. 

"But that's the main way they make profit, right," he said. "We can read a paper without looking at a picture and know that seven people were arrested for DUI -- we don't need the picture. It just -- to me -- seems like the way that they're making money is because the pictures are pathetic or sometimes funny."

RemoveSlander.com is a website that erases mug shots from the Web once a person has been legally cleared. The site said it uses "trade tools" to eliminate the mug shot. Spokesperson Philip Lee said he does not feel RemoveSlander.com should be "affiliated with the mug shot website."

RemoveSlander.com via ImageMax Mugshot Removal said it is the first reputation management firm to offer the service. For $399, RemoveSlander.com allows a customer to specify one website from which to have a mug shot deleted. For $699.00, the mug shot is removed from three sites. Remove.Slander.com has 14 business days to remove the mug shot from the website and Google or the customer gets their money back. If a customer has multiple arrests with more than one booking photo, that costs more.

In his suburban Atlanta home, McMahon seems at peace with his new life and everything that comes with it. However, he's eager to talk about his past if it means more people are aware of publications like Caught Up and sites like RemoveSlander.com.

"I'm human, I made a couple of mistakes -- it's not a secret I made more than one," McMahon said. "Everyone has a past. It's just unfortunate that mine is exploited for profit."

Again, this is all about the money. 

With 65 million Americans with criminal records, including 750,000 or so on the sex offender registry, the business opportunities are endless, at the expense of the people.

I have my own story to tell. During the lowest point in my life, the week my mother died, they released my mug shot in a Mug Shot rag, leading to harassment as I was grieving over my mother's death. A neighbor told my now ex-fiancee Brandi's mother that I was a "bad man" who "hurts people." The same could be said for that person as well as the people who run the Mug Shot Magazines. 

My original premise is this phenomenon is merely an extension of the Gestapo generation. Megan's Law, the flint that ignited this fire, has expanded over the years to other crimes. The justification has been to "inform the public." However, we have seen that argument fall apart when you see how these papers are viewed by the general public. It is the return to the scarlet letter and public pillories. These methods have been proven ineffective, so there is no other reason to have them than for entertainment value. Roman society crumbled while its citizens were distracted by "bread and circuses." American society is falling into an equally dangerous trap.

It is past time for legislation putting an end to these practices once and for all.

The alleged victim of the Sandusky/ Penn State case shows us the fallacy of the public registry

The question of the public registry has always been its perceived effectiveness. After all, around 95% of sex crime arrests are of people who are not on the public registry, added to the fact that few registered citizens re-offend, not to mention that many on the registry are on there for such dangerous behavior as teens having consensual relations with other teens or sexting, or maybe even some of these silly cases, that one might question what good the public registry is in the first place.

Perhaps the most damning indictment of the public registry has come from the current Penn State alleged sexual abuse case (I say alleged because until a court has rendered a decision, those involved are innocent until proven guilty, despite what the media thinks). Below is a section from a current CNN article on the Sandusky case (scroll down about halfway to find it):

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/16/us/pennsylvania-sandusky-case/index.html

The mother of one of Sandusky's alleged victims -- identified as Victim 1 in the indictment -- told CNN on Wednesday that her son watched the NBC interview and cried. "I said, 'Well, why did you cry?' And he said, 'Because I'm afraid that he might go free,' " said the woman, whose face and voice were altered to protect her -- and by extension her son's -- identity.

She said she first got clues that something was wrong when her son's behavior changed. "He went from like being a perfect 1,2,3 magic child to being ornery and being arrogant and mean," she said. But when her son asked her to lie to Sandusky when he called the house, she became suspicious.

"Then, out of the blue, one day he was sitting at the computer and wanted to look up 'sex weirdos.' He asked me 'What's the website you get on to look them up?' And I told him it was Megan's Law. And he said, 'Well, how do I type it in?' So, I gave him the web address and he typed it into the computer and I said, 'Who are you looking for?' and he said 'Jerry.' "I kinda froze. I was like, wow. 'What are you looking him up for?' And he was like, 'Oh, I don't know. I just want to see if he's on there.' I said, 'Well, why would he be on there? Do you have something you want to tell me?' and he was like, 'No.'" Asked what was going on with Sandusky, the boy answered, "Sometimes he just acts weird. So I just wanted to see if he was on there, that's all.'"

The mother said that, a few days afterward, she learned that Sandusky had been taking her son out of school without her permission, so she called school officials and asked them to talk to her son "and just ask him how he feels." Soon after, the principal called her back in tears and invited the boy's mother to meet with her and the school guidance counselor, the mother said. "They told me that my son had said some things about that there was a problem with Jerry," she said. "He just said that he thought he needed to tell somebody or it would get worse." The mother said that, at that point, she asked the school officials to call the police. "They said I needed to think about the ramifications of what would happen if I did that," she said.

No surprise, Sandusky was not on the Megan's fLaw website. The list does not work that way.

The Stop It Now website has a good commentary on this case and the importance of NOT relying on a list of "sex weirdos:"

We need to open our eyes to the reality of who sexually abuses children.  Research shows that adults know that children are most likely to be abused by someone they know and often love and admire.  We also know that most child sexual abuse is never reported to authorities.  So, just because someone seems really nice, has a good job, and is not on a sex offender registryⁱ doesn’t mean they are safe with your children.  What really matters is how they behave around children. 

Once Fallen Registry Fees Fact Guide

Just a quick note: Be sure to visit my latest article at OnceFallen regarding sex offender registry fees.

http://www.oncefallen.com/registryfees.html

Retort to recent Wendy Murphy article

This morning, Wendy Murphy, TV commentator and law professor, released an article entitled "WENDY MURPHY: Sex offender laws flawed but critical" in the Patriot-Ledger [http://www.patriotledger.com/opinions/x1080448945/WENDY-MURPHY-Sex-offender-laws-flawed-but-critical] . Below is my response, which I had to post in pieces at the site. But I DID sent it to her via e-mail.
___________________________________________________

Wendy Murphy was the one who famously said during the Duke Lacrosse/ Nifong case, "I never met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak the truth." [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13165471]. It ended up being a case of malicious prosecution. There are many flaws in this article that needs addressed.

The Dallas Morning News found over 4000 people on the Texas registry who were minors at the time they were added to the sex offender registry, some as young as age 10! A recent article stated Michigan had over 2000. There are many websites dedicated to these cases as well [see http://www.oncefallen.com/CriminalizingTeenSex.html for many examples].

In regards to recidivism rates amongst registrants, even the most negative studies state recidivism rates much lower than Murphy is claiming.

US Department of Justice, “Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released into the Community in 1994.”

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf

* Three-year follow-up period
* 9,641 sex offenders released in 15 states
* 262,420 non-sex offenders released in same 15 states in 1994
* 517 sex offenders (5.3% of all sex offenders) were arrested for a sex crime within 3 years
* 3,228 non-sex offenders (1.3% of all no-sex offenders) were arrested for a sex crime within the same three year
period
* 3.5% of sex offenders re-convicted

A more recent study found similar results after 10 years:

http://www.casomb.org/docs/RECIDIVISM%20OF%20PAROLED%20SEX%20OFFENDERS%2010%20year.pdf

* Recidivism after 1 year of release: 2.21%
* Recidivism after 2 years of release: 2.94%
* Recidivism after 5 years of release: 3.3%
* Recidivism after 10 years of release: 3.38%
* NOTEWORTHY FINDINGS: The total of sexual recidivists is lower than some might have believed. Most re-offenses and parole violations occur in the initial period of reentry after release. Sex offenders are more likely to commit some other type of offense than to commit a new sex offense.

Sex offenders have hundreds of victims is one of the biggest myths in the issue. It was a misread of an outdated Gene Abel study which relied on self reporting, which is highly inaccurate, and even so, Abel did not determine number of victims but lifetime acts of "paraphilias," which included certain acts once considered deviant but no longer, such as consensual homosexual relations. [see: http://www.oncefallen.com/SOMyths.html].

Vigilantism is a very real threat, as studies have shown up to 40% of registrants and and equal number of their loved ones, such as their spouses and their own children, have experienced threats, assaults, property damage, and murders. In fact, there is a blog dedicated to murders of sex offenders [http://on-murders.blogspot.com/] and on vigilantism against registrants and families [http://politically-sparked.blogspot.com/].

In regards to time served, in the Department of justice, the average sentence length was 8 years, but other states report longer sentences, which will only increase with mandatory minimums. As with other mandatory minimums, there are worries of abuses and loss of discretion with relatively minor cases (such as a "Romeo and Juliet" case), and may even deter reporting of sex crimes [see http://www.famm.org/UnderstandSentencing/WhattheExpertsSay.aspx for opposition to mandatory minimums for drug cases, which were once the great stigma of society].

It is time we revisit the registry and really determine its true value. Two recent studies from New York and New Jersey have shown the registry is no deterrent for crime, and the New Jersey study pointed out that 95% of sex crimes were committed by first time offenders. Even Maureen Kanka admitted the intent of the registries is not to reduce recidivism. [see: http://www.oncefallen.com/registriesrevisited.html].

Lets tell the truth here. The real intent of the registry is to name and shame those who committed sexually deviant acts. The registry does not promote healing, neither for the offenders nor for the victims. Instead, the public registry is a tool for social ostracism and vigilante violence. In our zealousness we have thrown caution to the wind and have passed laws based on what feels good rather than what works. The result has been disastrous. The result of one law has formed a camp of registrants living under the Julia Tuttle Causeway in Miami [http://www.oncefallen.com/juliatuttlecauseway.html]. The result of one law has placed a 16 year old on the registry for consensual relations with another teen, listed as a "sexual predator" [see www.rickyslife .com]. The registry led Stephen Marshall to gun down to registrants in Maine. One of his victims was convicted at 19 for consensual sex with a girl just weeks from her 16th birthday [http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1855771]. And now we're trying to make it worse by forcing the Adam Walsh Act upon society-- mandatory minimums, placing more people on the registry for life, civil commitment, increased federal jurisdiction, immunity and millions to the NCMEC, GPS, and a public non-sex child abuse registry. None of these will work. Treatment and rehabilitation works. So does a truthful education and prevention program such as Stop It Now! and the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center. Anything less is a sugar pill for a cancer patient.