End the Legislative Showboating, Truth sinks the Ship.

It is a new year and all the legislators have put their best Showboat feet forward. This without any consideration to the fact that the legislation needs to be based on the Republic’s Constitutional requirements of protecting individual rights, as well as the need for the new laws to be based on facts not speculation, probabilities, or mythology.

There are already a bevy of legislatures proposing new laws pertaining to Registered Citizens. In all of these cases these new laws rules and regulations are based on one primary assumption, and that is that there is a high probability of re-offense, once a person has been placed on the registry. That high re-offense rate is not only a fact-less myth, but an out right lie, this lie is something that proponents of these laws should be made to face. They should not be allowed to get away with the standard “everybody knows that they do re-offend”, make them prove it,  because you know that they can’t.

In almost all of the cases there will be hearings held before the passage of a law, often before the State Judiciary Committee of the legislature.  When these hearings happen, advocates need to be there and have in their hands the documentation that proves there is no high re-offense rate for people already on the registry. This alone is our first line of defense against stupid laws being passed and more restrictions being added. We must not allow the sex offender industry lobbyists, law enforcement, victims advocates, and uneducated legislators to get away with making the claim of high re-offense rates as a need for their additional new laws.

There is plenty of documentation out there showing the low re-offense rates, you only have to look to our site to find some of it. This year be pro-active, walk-in to the meetings! Not only be able to prove that there is no high re-offense rate, but be prepared to debunk any biased study such as the Butner study or the Prentky study that falsely show high re-offense rates. Challenge the legislators to prove that there is a high re-offense rate, which they won’t be able to do, before they try to pass a new law, rule, or regulation.

we all know what the premise behind all these laws is and that that that is that there is a high re-offense rate we also know that it is a lie there is neither a high re-offense rate for people on the registry nor is there one for people on the registry to be involved in any new sex crimes.

we also know that one of the new myths that they are using is unreported or underreported first of all there is no empirical evidence to prove this, Secondly using pure logic if people not on the registry are responsible for 99% of the new sex crimes than logic tells us that they are responsible for 99% of the unreported crimes.

It every hearing that someone goes to and to every legislator and Judge that someone has contact with, as well as every attorney involved in a SO case this information needs to be driven home to. In most states, if not all, the justification in the codification of the law has something referring to the high possibility of re-offense. first of all we prove to them that their justification does not exist and never did and next we show them the collateral damage that their laws have created. thereby their argument of community safety is proven to be a black infectious lie that should not stand in a Constitutional Republic.


Articles about low re-offense rates:

/blog/2016/10/15/so-why-are-the-reconviction-rates-so-important.html

/blog/2016/06/13/destroyed-families-destroyed-lives-all-because-of-a-lie.html

/blog/2016/05/09/simple-question.html

/blog/2016/05/09/(%20http://www.unomaha.edu/college-of-public-affairs-and-community-service/nebraska-center-for-justice-research/documents/ne-sex-offender-recidivism-report-2.pdf%20)

/blog/2015/12/29/who-really-commits-new-sex-crimes.html

https://rsoresearch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/butner_study_debunking_kit.pdf

DEBUNK PRENTKY STUDY pdf

Other articles along those lines:

/blog/2016/07/15/news-media-needs-to-shift-its-focus-to-really-dangerous-people-2.html

/blog/2016/07/02/14th-amendment-equal-protection-and-due-process-2.html

4 comments for “End the Legislative Showboating, Truth sinks the Ship.

  1. In Search of Liberty
    January 17, 2017 at 8:16 am

    Two points I’d like to make: A) I agree wholeheartedly with Robert’s comments over at NARSOL. Risk Based Assessment my ass; there should be no registry/registration—period! Registry/registration is unconstitutional because they violate: 1) Ex Post Facto, when applied retroactively, & 2) Due Process, both Procedural & Substantive in that you are not given fair notice of charges, i.e., that you pose a danger to the community and therefore must be subject to life time persecution; in addition, you are given no opportunity to confront your accuser, i.e., the State in a court of law. And B) on the issue of this “High Recidivism” thing proponents of SO laws try to sell is snake oil. Webster Dictionary describes residivism as: “a person who continues to commit crimes even after being caught and punished.” Now, I don’t know if anyone else can see this but it seems to me that if there is a high residivism rate then state prison boards are in on it. What am I talking about it? Simple. There has to be a fast revolving prison door for people who have committed sex offenses (SO). They commit a SO, get caught, get sentenced to what obviously is a small prison term, 6 months to a year and then BAM! Their back on the streets to do what? Commit another SO. Then the cycle repeats itself: In for a SO, Out to commit another SO, In for a SO, Out to commit another SO. Am I making sense here? Is this not the “residivism” point proponents of registry/registration are talking about? If so, then that my friends is a bunch of BS! Here’s why. All state penal codes have what are called “Enhancement” paragraphs for anyone indicted for a felony offense. In CA for example it is called “Three Strikes”. Meaning that with a third conviction you’re out of there partner, that’s a LIFE without parole sentence. In the Country of Texas they too have an enhancement statute. First offenders get 5-15 years, do 2-3 years and back on the street. Second offense, your looking at 25-45, do 15 to 20 years and back on the street, that third offense, you’re out of there partner looking at least to 60-75 years and you’ll pull at least 28-35 years on that before you breathe free air again. I had 55 years and paroled in 21 years. And I can assure you that nearly everyone that does this kind of time behind bars and gets out—they don’t wont’ any more trouble with the law because hell, you’re an old man!!! So somebody is promoting not a lie, but a “DAMN LIE” with this high recidivism crap. Just think about what I just tried to explain to you. The only way there could be a high recidivism rate with SOs is for the prison system to release people with SO crimes real early in their sentence and real often and in multitudes for their to be high numbers of SOs on the streets. And for some reason this dynamic of the issue is not talked about at all because some body might get smart and ask the question: hey, wait just a damn minute, if sex crimes are so heinous, how the hell are these people (SOs) even getting back out on the street to commit more sex offenses? Mmmm.

  2. mike r
    January 22, 2017 at 12:08 pm

    it sure seems like once you give notice to these legislators about the facts that they would be in deriliction of their official duties if they continue to pass more laws against us..

    • Bill
      January 31, 2017 at 1:54 pm

      A little of topic, but for 40 years Congress was given studies about the medicinal benefits of marijuana, but they would not hear one word. The DEA still plays dumb, but Congress is coming around. With time comes change.

  3. Tim Lawver
    February 6, 2017 at 10:43 am

    Yea it was always a “sham in mere pretext” (Kansas v Hendricks) but the real question a critical thinker may have is… why go to all the effort…to protect kids. Nah Federal gov’t did not care about kids when they nuked two Japanese cities.

    MY only conclusion is the Feds wanted “unfettered use of electronic monitoring of the general US population.” If our gov’t can indenture citizens to a database it can surely monitor them with it too! Why they would want that is rather obvious (See The little Prince, Machiavelli)

    However, that concept is not one that could have been laid bare to the public. Surely revolt would have soon followed had our beloved Gov’t told us “we want to monitor you all electronically”. Remember all this occurred 25 years back …..long before the popularity of the internet and social networks. Orwell’s 1984 was required reading then in high schools.

    So then how do you go about making it happen anyway—-Find a scape goat —The child molester made a perfect fall guy– Gin up some mass paranoia and BOOM you have your open door. Yet this did not get them everything they needed. They had to overcome those pesky constitutional rights.

    To do that they needed the Courts on their side, namely a SCOTUS ruling to clear the way. Hence we got Alaska’s case from the 9th circuit, who all ruled unconstitutional (though on different reasons/ grounds) We know what happened then.. Smith hit SCOTUS on states appeal, who reversed course completely and ruled it was fair game. Except for dissenters, Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer

    J. Roberts himself made the states case in DOE and eventually got appointed to our Highest court as TOP DOG. Now that can not be a coincidence. Basically, we still live in the good ole boy system of yesteryear but they have much more effective marketing and game plans. Nice to be filthy rich. Just ask R. Craft.

Comments are closed.