Comments on: Defunding the Fight Against Sexual Predators

By: jay

jay — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:37:28 +0000

i agree….i have a friend that was convicted of public urination…but the officer told him that if he were to be convicted of indecent public exposure he would have to be on that list for a minimum of 10 yrs..what do you think that would do to this man's life for something like that…but yet there is no way for the general public to distinguish between the two …half of american citizens don't even understand what the charges mean and how the state comes to the conclusion of what things like sexual battery or gsi are… people are just plain scared and they dont even know why and the politicians feed on this fact to gain votes,…its no longetr about justice or insight but instilling fear to control public opinion..its good to know who has done real whysical harm someone but i feel the man who just fell into a bad situation with the wrong girl shoulnt be punished the same as a person who planned and executed a rape…..where's the lines…

By: cynthia baniassad no

cynthia baniassad no — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 22:54:56 +0000

november 5 2010: saw jane velez mitchell's parents' worst nightmare programme. i was disappointed no email or other kind of address was given for donations or for joining a "friends of surviving parents" type of organization. could you send any of that type of info to my email address?

By: Roberta, Ohio

Roberta, Ohio — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 19:16:32 +0000

Everyone is adding to the problems we already have. First educatie yourself about the sex offenses and offenders, from tiny to large. Tier I, II and III and what they mean and what is serious, etc. Here in Ohio, there is no longer sagitory rape, now it is rape or not. So, a 17 year old and her 19 year old boyfriend have been doing things that mom and dad don't like, Tier I, we need to use common sense before pressing charges.

Tier III, now we are getting serious. Example, a tier III predator, named Robin Scott near us, Ohio only has him listed as that, he is NOT compliant the site says, but was charged out of state. Then in FL we find he was charged for sexual battery against minors under 16 years and under 12 years. Now he is going online and meeting single women with children, the one he is seeing now, her son is 8 years old. OK, that is why it is rediculous to say (I just read this someplace) "….what about the drug dealer who dealed to a minor after they are released?" What kind of comparison is that? We as parents need to step up to the plate and do the best we can to educate our kids about drugs and pray they make the right choices. We as parents MUST step up and behind our kids and STOP those preditors from harming our kids. IF you know your boyfriend or girlfriend is a sex predator, tier III, whatever, and you continue to see him/her, plain and simple, you don't need kids. YES MAKE TIER III OFFENDERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR MISTAKES!! They will not stop, we need to protect our kids, and those who won't do it, we need to do it for them.

Get the petitions ready and I will sign, PROTECT OUR KIDS!!!!!!!

By: Larry, Phoenix, Ariz

Larry, Phoenix, Ariz — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:26:20 +0000

I have been convicted in 2007 for possession of materials involving a minor (video of 15y.o. female). The SORNA is just a part of many Acts. You can count them on two hands and then some. There are state regulations that are already in place. The fact that SORNA made it to the hill has a lot to do with the sensationalism of larger offenses, mostly rape and murder. I agreee there are people (fiends) whom belong on the registry. I was abused, sexually, as a child and did not know it until after I was arrested for ordering the video online where at the time of detetion/incarceration my sister told me about [our] past. I am petioning to have a RISK ASSESSMENT in hopes that I can be classified a Tier I so that I only have to register for 10 years. The quality of rehabilitation and treatment is exceptional in the state of Arizona. The counselors perform a stellar job in making sure those who need medication or just rehab are weeded out appropriatley. the major tell-all tool in determining risk factor—better than any politician— is the POLYGRAPH TEST. These are used frequently in Arizona phsychological assesments and treatment maintainance. See my site to understand how unconstitutional the SORNA and Statge registraton and notification laws really are: . Wake up and smell the offender not the offense.

By: Advocate

Advocate — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:53:15 +0000

Many of the posters here, for and against the AWA are incorrect. Most, if not all of these parents who have lost a child are HIGHLY PAID LOBBYISTS for the perpetuation of draconian sex offender laws. Non Governmental Organizations enlist them to be the mouthpiece to propagate this nonsense. It is all designed to acclimate the public to the idea of registries where being tracked and traced for life is a "good thing". Life time probation for the populace is the goal. I`d say it`s high time parents understand that these laws which are, on the surface suppose to "protect the children" are meant to ensnare their own children when they reach puberty (as the largest group of people added to the registries last year (2009) were teenagers.) I must say though, it is encouraging to see that there is a small, albeit increasing public backlash against these registries, due to the ever increasing numbers of non violent people added to them every year..

By: Terrance, Washington

Terrance, Washington — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:06:42 +0000

This article is little more than propaganda. The AWA has nothing to do with "requiring sex offenders to register with local officials," as that has been handled for nearly two decades under Megan's Law.

The AWA is one man's act of vengeance against the American people for what another man did to his son. It asks us to set aside science, reason, liberty, and indeed the safety of our children in favor of the gratification some feel by 'lashing out.'

Laws will never suffice as a surrogate for good parental protection. Pushing a class of people into a corner, robbing the of their birth-given freedoms and disconnecting them from the world–as the AWA begins to do–can only cause us more injury, through the kids murdered by offenders who realize society has no capacity for forgiveness and who does not believe in second chances, and through the gradual erosion our individual rights; today's sex offenders are tomorrow's unpopular group.

I have little to say for the simple fact that congressmen cannot be the bold, decisive and honest people we fantasized they were in our youth, yet I have at least some admiration for those who act–or fail to do so–in defense of our rights and of common sense.

By: De Marcs

De Marcs — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 03:51:40 +0000

This article has misrepresented and attempted to misinform people about the process of "risk based assessments" of sex offenders or preditors. Risk assessment is a statistically proven method, uncovered by scientists and experts, over the decades, to reasonably predict which sex offenders are going to reoffend and which ones respond better to rehab. It has been effective on both sex offenders and predators (please not that there are differences between the two), enabling authorities and society to know who is who and to determenine the level of montoring that will be required. Lumping almost every sex offender as predators, pedophiles or high risk offenders is counterproductive. What good does it do to put a 17 year old high school boy convicted of having consensual sex with his 14 year old girlfriend in the same tier (as AWA makes it) with a 50 year old man who abducted and raped a 12 year old kid? The article represented the assessment as if it's just a casual interview, over a beer, with the offender and taking the offender's word for it. No sir! They pull court records, review criminal history, mental health records, and in some States , like NJ and MN, they involve proecutors, pyschiatrists, and in Arkansas, they employ lie dectectors tests on certain offenders in the process and give the offender the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses on why he/she should not be deemed high risk. It's due process and most Americans understand and cherish due process. Sounding "tough" on crime is good and may yields political winfall to a politician or monetary windfall for certain activists, but being wise in fighting crime protects our children better as it also make better use of law enforcement dollars. The American masses have been fooled for a long time. But now, you can see that the tide turning. Politicians can fool people sometimes, but not all the time.

By: st florida

st florida — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:46:00 +0000

There is a BIG difference between a sexual predator an a sexual offender. As a mother who know both types of people I still believe in registration for the predatory sexual offender yet not for the non-predatory sexual offender. Do we tell bank robbers they can't visit banks after they get out? Do we know where the drug addicts who sold drugs to minors now lives after his or her release? The Adam Walsh Act got put through because Adam Walsh was after all a child and the fear factor was played up.

By: Honest Opinion

Honest Opinion — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:51:01 +0000

Finally, labeling this blogger as “hateful” is beyond the pale. But taking your language, “hateful” of what? Of sick sexual predators, who victimize defenseless children with abhorrent sexual deviancy? You bet — and, if so, count me with him.

Defending Mrs. Roger "Stimson" is one thing BUT, your languade in naming registrants as sick child sexual predator is the exact reason why these laws need to be reformed. The save the children hysteria has lost it's glimmer and the facts are pouring in.

By: Slippery Slope in Oh

Slippery Slope in Oh — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 09:21:24 +0000

The problem is the registry has so many people listed, there is no way to no who is really dangerous. It is interesting in Ohio how so may people were at the lowest level on the registry & with implementation of AWA became a Tier 3 Offender??? I think there is an inherent problem with the law. It is pure politics—how easy for politicians to go after this group of people. The majority of the public is so naive to this subject, they jump on bandwagon of feel good laws. We need politicians to base laws on facts & not feelings. Most child victems are violated by family member or friend of family not some stranger. Why is that never mentioned by politicians. The public needs to be concerned when CIVIL RIGHTS are violated. This is an easy group to walk on but who will be next. Which group next will be subjected to ex-post facto and retroactivity? Americans need to be concerned.