<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Superb article series at Slate	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.narsol.org/2014/08/superb-article-series-at-slate/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.narsol.org/2014/08/superb-article-series-at-slate/</link>
	<description>National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2014 20:20:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Seymour		</title>
		<link>https://www.narsol.org/2014/08/superb-article-series-at-slate/#comment-30375</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Seymour]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2014 20:20:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nationalrsol.org/?p=1052#comment-30375</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Will there ever be a time to revisit the Supreme Court in regards to the Sex Offender registry, specifically; To actually define it as punishment, so as to re-write or abolish it’s current form? There is clear evidence of collateral consequences caused by these registries including ex offenders being homeless, jobless and sometimes refused food assistance, housing assistance, alcohol treatment and sober living institutions as a direct result of being on the registry. There is even a tax credit for employers who hire someone out of work for a period of time, but if they hire a sex offender, they are excluded from the credit. This is counter productive to the cause, ironically. There are statistics and scholarly papers online from the governments own websites corroborating this phenomenon, are they tone deaf, is it a semantics game or is it the popular vote in politics?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Will there ever be a time to revisit the Supreme Court in regards to the Sex Offender registry, specifically; To actually define it as punishment, so as to re-write or abolish it’s current form? There is clear evidence of collateral consequences caused by these registries including ex offenders being homeless, jobless and sometimes refused food assistance, housing assistance, alcohol treatment and sober living institutions as a direct result of being on the registry. There is even a tax credit for employers who hire someone out of work for a period of time, but if they hire a sex offender, they are excluded from the credit. This is counter productive to the cause, ironically. There are statistics and scholarly papers online from the governments own websites corroborating this phenomenon, are they tone deaf, is it a semantics game or is it the popular vote in politics?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
