Comments on: NARSOL CT affiliate speaks up, goes on record, in legislative hearing

By: Linda V

Linda V — Thu, 04 Aug 2022 07:49:05 +0000

In reply to Lorraine Hodge. The man had an active warrant out for his arrest! All they would need to do is have a policy at at Long Term care facilities that no one will an active warrant out for their arrest be admitted. Run a background check and if someone has a warrant out for their arrest then call the police, no need to write a new law over it.

By: Miserable Offender

Miserable Offender — Tue, 15 Mar 2022 19:44:55 +0000

In reply to Rob huling. Seems like the only hope we have for any of this mess to get straightened out is a nuclear war. If one happened the world would be thrown back 100 years in technology. No more internet for nosey soccer moms to check if a predator lives near by. All registry records would be incinerated with the initial blast, the resulting EMP would fry every computer. This is the only way that registry would be abolished. It would have to be physically destroyed.

By: Tim in WI

Tim in WI — Tue, 15 Mar 2022 14:29:34 +0000

In reply to jim. They live to call it "progressive policy" but there is nothing new about any of it.

By: jim

jim — Sat, 12 Mar 2022 03:18:20 +0000

In reply to jim.

The touchy feely names for laws that try to make the misinformed and scared feel better, that haven’t worked are, ” Adams Law” made over 1 crime. That “Law” raped the rights of hundreds of thousands people convicted of crimes that are not even close to or in the same category of that offence. Next, “Megans Law” again Raped the rights of hundreds of thousands of people not connected to that crime. Then in an attempt feel good about Megan’s law because it doesn’t work, they had to expand it to international law to hope it may eventually have an effect. The only thing Adams Law did was make John Walsh very wealthy. Wonder how much involvement John had in that crime that he was so sure to profit from it. HUMM?

By: Lisa K

Lisa K — Fri, 11 Mar 2022 23:00:50 +0000

In reply to Rob huling. This is one of the saddest example of the damage our fear-based legislation has caused. When a dying soul cannot get care, what kind of society do we live in? We've isolated and alienated those who need us most! Your decision is heartbreaking...

By: Lisa K

Lisa K — Fri, 11 Mar 2022 22:56:37 +0000

In reply to jim. We need to hold off on passing laws like this unless there is data proving the law would benefit. 100% agree that reactionary laws need to be carefully examined. We know the registry has proven to be a horrible disaster for everyone involved and has helped no one. Why didn't this get studied prior to passing? Fear and $ pushes legislation better than science based studies and common sense.

By: Rob huling

Rob huling — Fri, 11 Mar 2022 14:55:47 +0000

Texas does this. At 60 years old, my wife and I regularly discuss what our “plan” would be if I needed care.
Realizing that I can not relocate from our 2 story home, realizing that I haven’t had gameful employment and live at the poverty level, realizing that our savings and retirement benefits are virtually non existent, we have concluded…. Put me in a boat and push me out to sea.

By: Lorraine Hodge

Lorraine Hodge — Fri, 11 Mar 2022 14:20:41 +0000

It is so good to hear someone speak up against an “unfair bill against a class of people who already have had their rights “sucked dry by the system”. Powerful, to the point and meaningful words. God Bless Cindy Prizio for speaking the words we have all felt and wanted to say.

By: mut

mut — Fri, 11 Mar 2022 14:13:59 +0000

In reply to mut. would there be a formal hearing? appointment of counsel? or just more deprivations (pains and penalties) without the safeguards of judicial process?

By: mut

mut — Fri, 11 Mar 2022 14:08:19 +0000

does a janitor determine what a prior conviction was for and whether or not that conviction is valid?
will the janitor rely upon the charging document alone, resort to the reception of evidence or will the janitor simply accept a new legislative re-definition of a prior judicial judgment?
more questions than answers.