In my case, judging me based solely on my offense seems like nothing but a continuation of the fantasy that was created in the imagination of the cops who set me up and the media who sensationalized my arrest to the point where it was reported that I was “part of a child sex trafficking ring.” It’s funny because I’ve never had any sexual encounters with an underage person, ever.

In my case EVERYTHING was based on what i may have done and look where it got me. I’m more for having a risk based system as opposed to just using the offense but it does seem very dangerous to allow the system to classify and punish people based on predictions of what they might do. Which is, I suppose, what’s already happening with the abomination known as the Registry.

I agree with the others on here….the real problem is the Registry itself.

Why care about what a future registration system is based on? This seems to be a distraction and loss of focus.

Why not just maintain focus on the real deal: Strong and repeated legal challenges to Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) “The question is if the intention was to impose a punishment or “civil proceedings”. If the intention was to punish, that ends the inquiry. If the intention was to enact a regulatory scheme that is civil and nonpunitive, the Court must examine whether the scheme is so punitive as to negate the State’s intention to deem it civil.” Establishing and proving punishment at SCOTUS is the janga block that can cause the current registration scheme to collapse.

Facts are starting to matter now. Facts are starting to make it into significant court rulings. We have the legal community’s recognition that these laws are based on false preambles – the false facts used to brief the SCOTUS leading to this erroneous decision in 2003, and the fear mongering/ false facts by politicians and special interest groups that used this 2003 precedent to put far reaching and more onerous laws in place since.

Above all, we now have a decade and a half of empirical data that does not support the conclusion of the 2003 SCOTUS or the subsequent laws since. We need to cut this tree down at the base and not keep trying to trim its branches. We need to advance the legal challenges to Smith v. Doe that these laws were not only enacted based on false preambles (false, inaccurate information) but that there is little question as to their punitive nature since enactment.

If Smith v. Doe falls, then shall AWA. AWA with its conviction based scheme has been a disaster of epic proportions since enactment. Its funding continues to bloat the federal government with ineffective, bureaucratic management of the SORN program since enactment. Hard to imagine that the pending 6th Circuit case will not further erode the failed efforts of DOJ in enacting AWA as three of its seventeen compliant states are likely to be impacted.

You are dealing with pseudoscience or what in the scientific community is referred to as “Witch Science” which is in the realm of parapsychology and metaphysics.

What it boils down to is guess work, collecting data and rolling dice against a closed system of variables based on that data but failing to capture the vast complex network of all the variables.

If actuarial profile analysis (comparative analysis of identified components by the observer relating to static and dynamic variables about behaviors shared by the general populous) were a valid way of predicting future human behavior that would be the end of a democratic society where fear would overshadow human rights and the whole idea behind freedom i.e. United States Constitution, Bill of Rights

It’s really sad that we live in a time when people will spew out all types of hate against government leaders by referring to them as liars, racists, criminals, Nazis, Hitler’s, etc.. We think making reference to a President of the USA as equivalent to a madman who was responsible for the death of 30 million people and the destruction of more than half of Europe is some sort of slam. We’ve heard it so many times, it’s become oblivious to us. It’s making us yawn.

But call him a “sex offender” and watch what happens.

As far as I know are impossible period!

Is not any citizen responsible for there own behavior?

Does one really need a crystal ball reader-babysitter-fortune teller to evaluate future behavior?

Would it not be easier for a sane and liable person to create a quasi affidavit contract to not re-offend sexually? And filing it with the secretary of state (executive branch) and possibly with the judicial branch through a formal motion and petition. It would need to be drafted in such a way as to show that above entitled person has completed a sex offender treatment programs, counseling etc.

RRECIDIVISM PROBLEM solved, IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE and with a little research I am sure there is not any statute ordinance, administrative law or judicial rules of civil or criminal procedure etc. to prohibit one from doing this?

Getting this idea into the legislature in the form of a bill and drafting a law for it would be challenging but not impossible.

In the words of one of our most memorable presidents:

“The only way to predict the future is to create it.” – Abraham Lincoln

I have never seen this specifically addressed in the case law? All the case law you see floating around in the Shepherd’s are more focused on “liberty interests” rather than “fundamental rights” which include “human rights” and “freewheeling law.” You can google the word “punishment” to death and derive little meaning from the existing legal dicta or juris prudence. Oh yes let’s not forget the ever eluding “Bill of of Pains and Penalties1” or “Bill of Attainder1″ that the current state of juris prudence cleverly evades by walking on egg shells for fear of abolishing the registry itself…

1″A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial.”

Small victories open the doors to large victories that will eventually lead to the abolishment of the registries. Registrants and their familes become embroiled over the news of small victories. We then come together and push for bigger changes as the small victories are not satisfactory and we can feel a sense of gaining ground in our battle.

I assure you that every member of NARSOL has the ultimate goal of seeing the registry laws abolished, just as you do. We just know that realistically, that is not going to happen in one swoop. Winning a war involves taking back territory one battle at a time.

I agree with what you are saying. There are some key cases being decided this year. (various premise cases, social media, 6th circuit case ruling the registry unconsitutional) The outcome of these cases will be a good litmus test for determining exactly how burdened we are as a group in the face of state and federal courts. I posted in another article awhile back it may take us organizing as a group and literally marching on washington we just need organization and numbers. I imagine on average each registrant has at least 3 people who support them so that would push our numbers to roughly 3.5 million today. If we had like 20 to 25% of that to take to Washington I think people would finally hear us.