SarahF, you are right on and Jacob I agree as well. I think victims are used often. Or at the very least the politicians and/or public use a broad stroke in their cases and assume all victims want the same thing. I always say being a victim of a crime does not make you an expert in the prevention of that crime.

That’s an area where we need to keep educating journalists and the public— there is no inherent conflict between registry reformers and survivors, and politicians who push registries in the name of survivors rights probably aren’t listening to the wishes of survivors (and in fact may be using them).

Spot on, SarahF.

The above is often heard in court hearings to get off probation or even the registry. Yet time and time again experts say otherwise.
Funny, the prosecutors expert shop to find ones who will use fake inflated numbers to say we are all going to re-offend at some point or another. Then dispute any figures by the defense experts as made up and not based on any real science.

I know from experience, prosecutors hate to lose. When I was granted an appeal on my sentencing, the prosecutor nearly had to be removed from the room for the fit she threw.

Moreover, while governments may be reluctant to support sexual offenders to reintegrate due to concerns about what victim/survivors think, our research shows most victim/survivors endorse the CoSA motto: no more victims.​

Is this why politicians come up with so many nonsensical laws, because they are “reluctant to support” those who once committed a sex offense due to what “victims” think? Victims need to be taken care of so they can begin the healing process, but does this mean that we now want all “victims” to dictate what laws are to be passed, as in “mob law”.

Additionally, as the article states, the politicians are clueless as to what the victims are really thinking.