NY Times – Room for Debate: Lawmakers have to ask what restrictions make people safer, and which just create new problems like camps of homeless sex offenders. Full Article (5 Articles)
Wow…this sounds like Orange County…except they don’t want us talking to each other here.
Like or Dislike: 0
Excellent ..excellent article in there too assistant Professor
Jennings “Laws from baseless Assumptions “…at least the
NYTimes is putting the issue out there…Excellent.
Like or Dislike: +2
In their comment section a reader points out what I’ve said
in a different article here before and that is the next so called
“sex” crime will be from some person NOT on a registry list…
in NewYork the percentage is over 96 that a sex crime today
or tomorrow was NOT from someone on registry list…my
understanding here in California its >99 % the next sex crime
won’t be from someone on registry …they are wasting time and
Like or Dislike: +4
Here’s a great idea.
Put everyone on the RSO list and then those who have NOT committed a crime in 10 years time drop off the list. Most of us would be off the list.
Like or Dislike: +5
I agree with everyones comments. I really dont understand this. Cities are putting restrictions on where sex offenders can live and visit! So, how do they expect these individuals to get jobs, move forward with their lives and be decent law abiding citizens? Seriously. I often wonder if cities try to instill these fears to hire more police? Again, I still get hassled once a year from police and while all of my charges have been dismissed and I received informal probation, they act like Im Americas Most Wanted? Surreal. They drive around and show up in this American Made SUV with tinted windows or Nissan Altimas? I mean, get real. We presently have homeless and jobless sex offenders. Now, if you were jobless, homeless and destitute and being harassed by police, what would you do? Its almost as though the police set people up to fail? No offense, but Im truly surprised we havent heard of a sex offender losing it? People can only be pushed soo hard.
Like or Dislike: +1
USA… There was a registrant that lost it, his name was John Gardner! Unlike most of us on the registry, there are a few that are unstable and potentially very dangerous. So why would the state choose to taunt these people until they felt they had no reason to no longer control themselves?
I believe Gardner would not have lashed out had he been living in a stable atmosphere. It was bad enough he was locked up in California’s violent penal system where he was subjected to abuse from other prisoners, as well as prison guards. But then he is released back into a hostile society with very little support, and then after he acts out, the public screams for more harsh punishment of all sex offenders.
Out don’t know folks, it just seems like we are trying to cure a headache with multiple blows with a hammer to the head.
If you look deeper into Gardner, he probably would have still done that even if provided a stable living situation. He had already shown that he was very rebellious against authority and intentionally was doing things that violated his parole. He is the very type of person the registry was created for, unfortunately, the law…and those who propose/campaign for these laws…puts a man who urinates in public in the same category as someone like Gardner. THAT is the real problem.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Please answer this question to prove that you are human *
8 + = 10
Use PayPal or a Credit Card. To donate in other ways, please see here.