Comments on: Missouri Alliance says only those who are truly a threat should remain on the “sex offender” registry

By: tormail

tormail — Thu, 29 Feb 2024 03:58:26 +0000

In reply to Derek W. Logue of OnceFallen.com. The thing about labels is that it dehumanizes the person. Instead of a person with feelings and pain, they see a monster. The unfortunate truth is, most people are unable to resist attacking an easy target on which to focus their hate. It gives people a feeling of justice, and righteousness to focus their hate on someone else they feel is worthy of it.

By: Dustin

Dustin — Tue, 27 Feb 2024 17:29:54 +0000

I think the Missouri Alliance’s position to only register those who are “truly a threat” would be more solid if it could demonstrate how registration mitigates such threats rather than complain about the overwhelming majority of those who “shouldn’t be on it.”

Non-compliance with registry restrictions and obligations has never had one single thing to do with the few-and-far-between commission of new sex crimes committed by registrants. I’ve never seen a registry violation included in any report of registrant recidivism. If anyone has, please post it.

By: Saddles

Saddles — Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:19:33 +0000

In reply to Anonymous. Annonyous you are right about probation. Sure they want the facts in most and many of these cases, but were is the evidence, or the truth. Is that a true justice system one has today.. And yes they will con on into a plea deal vs going to court to make your case. Let the truth be known.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 23 Feb 2024 16:37:46 +0000

I’m with Derek, I think the registry is unnecessary. Almost all cases have probation attached, which is MORE than enough supervision to make any need for a registry moot. If someone successfully completes probation, they truly are no more of a risk than your neighbor, boyfriend, or frankly the local police officer. And if you are worried about the guy on the registry living 1000 feet down the road, you should DEFINITELY be worried about the neighbor, boyfriend, and police officer as well.

By: Derek W. Logue of OnceFallen.com

Derek W. Logue of OnceFallen.com — Thu, 22 Feb 2024 05:12:12 +0000

No one should be on a public registry. After 30 years of the federal registry and about 77 years of state-level registries (Cali’s state registry began in 1947), we’ve proven we do are incapable of separating the high risk from the low-to-no risk.

It saddens me to know that this movement still falters on making firm stands on abolition. In my survey of 695 anti-registry activists, only 55% stated they advocate to abolish the registry. So nearly half of you aren’t fully anti-registry.

By: FEDUP

FEDUP — Wed, 21 Feb 2024 02:30:10 +0000

Am a mis designated sexual predator.
How would this work in my case? How will this be determined? Who is more likely to reoffend? Sounds different but same sh$$$. If you have been offense free for decades would that be sufficient to be off registry.
Those who are truly remorseful will that count and have move forward and beyond. SHAME FOR NONE OR NOTHING AT ALL THATS A STEP FORWARD. STAND STRONG TOGETHER ON THIS MAY THEY NOT TRY TO DIVIDE AND Conquer FROM WITHIN.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:24:18 +0000

It’s a step toward outright abolition and that’s certainly a good thing.

By: Bwj

Bwj — Tue, 20 Feb 2024 00:47:28 +0000

That sounds like a good idea, but I can see lawmakers making the bar so high and convoluted that the law would be meaningless. What standards are met for low risk? How long on the registry? Etc.