UPDATED -Guilt by Association: Labeling Research-Based Policy Suggestions as “Pro-Offender”
UPDATED – Dr. Lisa Anne Zilney was our Guest Speaker for the Monthly Membership call Thu Oct 1 at 8pm ET.
Click here to listen to Dr. Zilney.
Dr. Zilney discussed this article on “Guilt by Association: Labeling Research” and introduced her latest book “Impacts of Sex Crime Laws on the Female Partners of Convicted Offenders: Never Free of Collateral Consequences.” An Associate Professor of Justice Studies at Montclair State University in New Jersey, she teaches a course on Sex Crimes (Sex Crimes Course Syllabus). She earned her Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Tennessee; an MS in Criminal Justice from Eastern Kentucky University, and a BA in Psychology from the University of Windsor in Ontario, Canada. Her primary research interests are in the area of sexual offending legislation and its collateral impacts on the partners and families of sexual offenders. She has authored or coauthored five books and has published widely in journals.
In the current political climate, keyboard warriors are out in full force: tossing rude insults, stigmatizing and labeling individuals, and posting adversarial disagreements to almost every social media post that crosses my desk. I recently stumbled across a Facebook post that advocated letters and petition-signing in the hopes of banning those required to register for a sex offense from yet another venue in life. A little more Facebook digging and I found numerous pages dedicated to labeling both convicted individuals and those only suspected of sex crimes. These pages (which do not violate Facebook’s Community Standards) are replete with hate, threats, and violence.
Laws across the United States restrict where registrants can both reside and congregate, restrict participation in activities, restrict attendance at school functions for children or grandchildren, restrict travel both national and international, provide employment and licensure restrictions, provide designations on passports and driver’s licenses, allow for mandatory minimum sentences, and use a public registry to identify many individuals for life. Such legislation merely serves to create a public that feels safer; these laws do not empirically decrease sexual violence. But does that matter to most Americans?
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You know it’s a cult of hate and the most extreme form of brainwashing when they outright reject proof backed by links to credible evidence and real world statistics.
You simply cannot have a rational, much less civil, conversation on this topic with anyone who’s mind has already been corrupted by the media, lawmakers, Dr. Phil, Walsh, etc.
Public opinion is the real source of decay when it comes to any progress. It holds us back.
I tried to comment on the article but no matter that I even downloaded the app, I couldn’t find a place to comment. Anyway, this is what I want to say…
Great article except for one thing – the constant use of the term “sexual violence” by the writer. NOT all sexual offenses are violent, as the author made clear towards the beginning but then went on to talking about education to stop sexual violence.
We all know that the legal age changes from state to state. If you’re 30 and have a relationship with a 16 yr old in CT, it’s 100% legal. Cross the CT line into NY and the legal age is 17 which would make a relationship with a 16 yr old ILLEGAL. But that does not mean it was “violent”. Please stop always using the word “violence” when talking about sex offense issues and rehabilitation.
The high school kids that will be in the registry for sharing nude photos were NOT violent.
To keep using the term “violence” is what’s helping to spread misinformation. Just like the laws being titled “Sexual ASSAULT” when no actual “assault” took place. A consensual relationship is NOT an assault as per the example I gave above about age laws differing from state to state. Perhaps the name of the law for a consensual yet illegal relationship should be changed to “sexual MISCONDUCT”. But the legislature knows that the word “assault” is nice and scary and gets them the votes they want from the public they are misinforming and brainwashing.
🤷🏻♂️
Did it give you the choice to create an account through medium.com? Or you can sign in through a google account, facebook, or email.
I understand your feelings about calling everyone violent when the person was not and is not violent. But on the other hand, Ms. Zilney is an important ally for us to have, so even though correction can be needed if stated in a kind way, I feel that the major emphasis needs to be on thanking her for the truths she is trying to educate the public with. (But that is just my opinion, and I have learned that not everyone at FAC agrees with me and that is okay.) And, yes, hopefully, she will learn that not everyone on the registry deserves to be classified as violent. Or if they were violent at one time, that does not mean they deserve to be called violent now.
Do you have a source I can use that states you can be 30 in CT and have relations with a 16 year old? I would like to use that information in my writings.
I think the article was fabulous except for that word “violent” always used in regards to sex offenses. Yes, I did log in to Medium and even downloaded the app and still couldn’t see a place to leave a comment but saw other comments left.
I am from CT. Did the sex offender treatment group in CT. They clearly said: If she was 16 you wouldn’t be here.
Before I was sentenced, the probation officer who conducted my PSI said the same thing. The arresting police said the same thing.
https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2005/title53a/sec53a-71.html
In the state of CT 16 is the legal age to have a relationship with anyone 16 yrs of age or older. Only if you’re under 16 the other person cannot be more than 2 yrs older. Also, if you’re 16 the other person cannot be 2 yrs younger.
I would also like to add that since the state and law enforcement all saw this as the CONSENSUAL relationship that it was, myself and others in the same situation should NOT be subjected to the sex offender registry because WE ARE NOT WHAT THE REGISTRY WAS EVEN CREATED FOR.
My age when my offense happened is irrelevant yet it’s what most people ask me as if they’re going to give me their own “free pass” if I was maybe 19 at the time. But you see the law CLEARLY states that if the person is UNDER 16, the “actor” cannot be more than 2 yrs older.
The registry was not created for these type of situations that – although they are illegal – many of us when we were younger in Generation X found it cool to get with older people. I myself did it. Most of the girls in my freshmen yr of high school were messing with 20 yr old men. It can be
“wrong” and get you a conviction (the minimum is 9 months for this) but it doesn’t have to land people on a registry that was created for lunatics who KIDNAPPED, RAPED and MURDERED their child victims.
And no amount of people trying to make me feel bad about my opinion are going to make me change my opinion.
Since we’re in this strange “cancel culture”, how about we cancel Elvis Presley? Priscilla herself, the woman who would be considered a “victim” just like my alleged “victim” doesn’t have any issues with her and Elvis’s age difference. She did an interview about 2 yrs ago which can be seen on YouTube where she is literally giggling at the fact that their relationship was illegal.
So when S.O. treatment leaders and probation officers would ask me “How do you think your victim feels”, I would upset them by saying the truth: “I don’t know. You won’t let me talk to her about it. Not even to apologize to her.”
They didn’t know what to say to that.
The registry is a hot mess but unfortunately far too many people, CHRISTIANS INCLUDED, have come to rely on it. Absolute 0 forgiveness. Yet, in so many social media comments I see people referencing “god” while also saying the accused/convicted sex offender should be killed. Interesting, eh? I think so. And I enjoy calling them out on it.
Thank you for the link to the statute.
If I am remembering correctly, CT is one of the better states to live in as a registrant. Or am I remembering incorrectly?
I agree and I often state in my comments/letters that most of the people on the registry are people for which the registry was never intended. Even Patty Wetteringly, the mother who helped jumpstart Congress into starting the registry, agrees.
I am a Christian and do not even begin to “defend” those who spurn those forced to be on the registry. As I have said before at this site, my husband and I only give our donations to a church that accepts registrants with open arms, and I had to go about 100 miles to find that church. I read the Bible daily. These so-called Christians are not obeying the commands given in scripture.
CT is one of those states with the 10 yr minimum for registry unless it’s a child under 12. And CT is one of those states where when you’re off the registry- you’re off the registry.
A good argument should be made to other states to follow that idea. There is NO NEED to put people BACK on the registry if they are off of it and decide to move. REALITY is something the court system doesn’t like very much. And REALITY is that no one thinks to themselves “Gee, let me look up all the laws of the state I am interested in moving to”. This is 1 country. Not 50 countries in one continent. When people regain their freedoms and liberties, they are under the impression that they have regained their freedoms and their liberties. Period. And the entire population of registered people are NOT aware of FAC or NARSOL to know what’s going on.
VT and UT are also states that allow you to get off permanantly and i am sure there are others in fact the population of RSO’s in VT has risen 300% over the past 2 years i am sure because there are people looking to get off of the registry and try and live as normal a life as they can. Unfortunality until we win in court even if we did move and get off the registry in another state because we were put on it in Florida we can never come off no matter what
I saw 2 different posts on facebook where the sites were praising people that had hurt people on the sex offender list the most recent was a site called contento days where they were asking if Jason Vukovich a self addmitted killer of people on the registry did a good or bad thing. When i asked facebook to remove it siting that it was justifying violence/murder against a certain group of people, they wrote bac that it did not violate the terms of their policy but thanked me for bringing it to their attention. I have said this over and over again in this forum. Our situation is never going to get better it will only worsen. Every time we get a small victory in court there are 2 new laws enacted against us, and eventually that small victory gets overturned. we are a form of modern day slavery we can only live in certain places we can only work in certain area’s, and we are restricted on where we can travel. Not to mention that the american government does not want us here in America but they also do not want us to leave as they put pressure on other countries to ban us and make registries of their own
Article for those that can view facebook: https://www.facebook.com/contentodays/photos/a.311448945901517/1281588838887518/?type=3&comment_id=1281758902203845¬if_id=1599390400680399¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic
Thank you, Dr. Zilney!
When I someone so obsessed with sex offenders. It reminds me of the Florida congress man that started this mess and resigned in shame after a tryst with a page, sometime those who proclaim loudest/most have the most to hide
Lisa Zilney hit the nail on the head. The only thing missing is the favorite phrase of all, we’re accused of “normalizing pedophilia.”
That is, when these idiots can even spell pedophile correctly.
Many pedople have spelled it “pedifile” with makes me think of something you need when getting your toenails done.
*People.
Damn, the stupidity and inability to spell is contagious. I need to quit reading all the QAnonsense.