A certain website was brought to my attention recently via a commenter affiliated with the site. In the effort of fairness, I will provide links to the site here, but I want to make it very clear that I absolutely DO NOT support their efforts.
The site I am speaking about is cfcoklahoma.org, the site for American Citizens of Legislative Change, out of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Ever interested in moonbat sonar technology, I had to give the site a looking over. I clicked on a link to their mission statement and received a 404 error. This was but an omen. Wanting to know what the agenda of this group is, I did see a link entitled “Unified Position.” In the interest of fair use, I would like to summarize what this group stands for in their own words (but edited for brevity and succintness). The words in green are my own.
1. We Especially Oppose the Current Sex Offender Registration System
Sex offender registration is useful for law enforcement agencies only, for the identification and tracking of convicted sex offenders who have been deemed by qualified experts to be genuinely at high risk to re-offend. Public notification can actually be harmful to public safety by diluting the ability to identify the most dangerous offenders. It also can disrupt the stability of low-risk offenders. Without proper limitations, citizens who are related to an offender will also be harmed mentally, emotionally, and economically by the registration system.
Community notification and Internet disclosure should be abolished and offender information kept strictly in the hands of law enforcement as directed by law. There should also be meaningful penalties for unlawfully disseminating offender information or using it for malicious purposes.(The above would be a pervert’s paradise, wouldn’t it? Outrageous!)
2. We Oppose Electronic Monitoring, such as G.P.S. (Global Positioning Satellite) tracking for former-offenders:
GPS is an expensive and ineffective tool which undermines compliance and personal responsibility. (LOL! If perverts acted responsibly, we wouldn’t be discussing them.) Current technology is hampered by limitations leading to frequent false alarms, has costly upkeep fees ($10 per day), and can easily be removed by those intent on breaking the law. NCSR believes electronic monitoring may be used most effectively in situations requiring intensive supervision and monitoring for those offenders deemed at highest risk of additional violent behaviors. (Incarceration or execution would be a more viable alternative.)3. We Oppose all Forms of Residency Restrictions:
A number of states and locales are enacting residency restrictions in which sex offenders may not reside within a certain radius of schools, parks, skating rinks, certain neighborhoods, etc, and may not utilize emergency resources such as group homes, homeless shelters and hurricane shelters with no evidence that these laws protect children. In fact, those states that have studied the issue carefully have found no correlation between sex offense recidivism and sex offenders’ proximity to schools or other places where children congregate.
Research has shown that sex offenders with domestic stability (stable housing and social support) are less likely to commit new sex offenses compared to those offenders who lack such stability. (Prison can provide pretty stable housing. I hear they have social support there, too.)4. We Oppose Mandatory Minimum Sentences:
Long mandatory minimum sentences can have a number of negative consequences that serve to decrease, rather than increase, public safety. Mandatory minimums hamper judicial discretion and impede the use of fair sentencing, forcing more trials that subject victims to harmful interrogations. (Now you care about the victims…) Furthermore, it may also give violent offenders ample incentive to murder their victims. (So… violent offenders shouldn’t fear consequences for their actions because they might kill people?) Discretion should be kept in the hands of competent courts. (If courts were doing their job on their own, we wouldn’t have to have mandatory sentencing.) Similarly, judges or juries may be less inclined to convict a defendant on a sex offense because of the mandatory minimum sentence. (Then the juries aren’t doing their civic duty and following the rule of law.) Long mandatory minimum sentences can also keep victims who were assaulted by someone they love from reporting the crime. (What good does reporting the crime do if the offender is let off easy?) All of the possible negative consequences can result in fewer sex offenders being treated fairly; thus NCSR opposes mandatory minimum sentences. We believe that the control belongs in the hands of the Justices.
5. We Oppose Civil Commitment for First Time Offenders:
More medically defined…Civil Commitment statutes allow state authorities to hold sex offenders after their criminal sentences have expired if the offender is deemed too dangerous to be released. Such statutes usually mandate that these offenders be confined to a treatment facility until they are no longer an imminent risk to the community. Legal opinions about civil commitment have indicated that appropriate treatment must be made available to those who are confined involuntarily and that such confinement must not be oriented toward punishment. (So, we should let offenders loose knowing that they are destined to cause more harm?)6. We Oppose Email and Screen Name Registration:
Electronic Identity Registration Laws (EIRL) aimed at Registered Sex Offenders should target only those who break Internet sex crime laws and not former Sex Offenders simply because they are Registered. Email Registrations aimed at Registered Sex Offenders are based on the myth that they are likely to re-offend via the internet. Gasp! They wouldn’t do that! These regulations are not practical because of the ease in which an Electronic Identity is obtained via the internet and offer no real protection against those persons who desire to commit sexual crime through the use of the internet. Email registration aimed at Registered Sex Offenders violates the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment guard against unreasonable searches and seizures. (There is nothing unreasonable about knowing who an email address is registered to.)7. We Oppose “Romeo and Juliet” Convictions and Registration:
Romeo and Juliet Laws have created a problem for society in a way that is subverting human nature and proper childhood development. Today, orthodox religious leaders operating through America’s government are attempting to dictate to the American people what the age of consent should be. We believe that every American family should have a right to determine when their son or daughter is mature enough to have consensual sexual relations. (There are so many things wrong with that statement I don’t know what to say.) We also believe that consensual sex between young people should be decriminalized or without the registration requirement. There is a clear difference between consensual sex and sex which is forced upon another. (Children are not mature enough to give consent. That is why we call them children.) It is a function of the court to determine the facts in each case, without personal or religious bias entering into a case. (Religion should have nothing to do with it. But bias and morality are not the same thing.) Therefore, we oppose Romeo and Juliet cases being deemed felonies. We also oppose children and adolescents being listed on the sex offender registry unless a violent crime had occurred. (A point of agreement? Yes, unless the offender was charged as an adult.)
If this group is truly interested in reducing sex crimes, as they purport, then perhaps that is honorable. However, the means proposed are outrageous, irresponsible, and just plain dangerous. We cannot go back to the days of silence and sweeping ugliness under the rug. Our system is not perfect, but it is the best system in the world. As I have said before, knowledge is power against crime. We are crawling out of the dark ages when silence and secrets were the rule. In keeping the public informed of sexual predators and separating them from civilized society, this may the age of enlightenment.
Breaking The Law:
One more note: Since I’m sure someone from cfcoklahoma.org will be reading this post, you might want to make a certain adjustment ot your website. The header image on your site depicts the state seal of Oklahoma. Unless you are authorized to display this seal –I doubt very much that you are since most Oklahomans aren’t going to allow their tax dollars to be spent in advocacy of sex offenders– you are in violation of Oklahoma law and are committing a misdemeanor offense. you might wish to correct this at your convenience.
Add New Comment
Viewing 22 Comments
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.