Petition to Declare Public Sex Offender Registration in the United States a Violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
Today, approximately one-million people in the United States are forced to register as “sex offenders”. The label leads to stigmatization, separation from society, loss of employment, loss of housing and even exposure to violence at the hands of vigilantes. The stigmatization extends to the spouses, children, family, friends, employer and anyone that associates with the registrant. The isolation, shame, stress, fear of violence, loss of income and other psychological effects are experienced by the entire household.
They need this in Florida big tine. This registration stuff is nuts for petty things they aren’t using tjd registration like its meant to be used its all political and money
Want to start a pole on FAC site soon how many would like to participate?
If only the truly dangerous were listed, two things would happen—two things the registry-industrial complex can never allow:
1) The numbers would crater. With sexual recidivism rates hovering around 5% (DOJ SMART Office, 2012), the registry would shrink from nearly 800,000+ registrants (ACSOL, 2024) to a fraction—too small to justify the $500 million annual price tag (WorldMetrics, 2026). No more awe, no more fear. P.S> lets not discuss the probable real factor that the 800,000 number itself is fake and was just a agreed as a perfect metric number to keep rehashing. enough to scare BUT not enough to scare too much. With all the registrants added each year and the longer lifetime requirements? Yea maintaining an exact 800,000 seems a bit fake doesnt it? (shhh.. dont tell them weve caught on)
2) Once the public realized we’re spending half a billion dollars to track people with lower re-offense rates than your average burglar (Prison Policy Initiative, 2019), they’d demand solutions that actually work. Can’t have that.
CONCLUSION: Too many livelihoods depend on this fear factory. OffenderWatch alone pulls in $10+ million annually serving 4,000 agencies (NOLA.com). GPS monitoring contracts could hit $1.2 billion per year if expanded (Registry Report, 2018). Background check companies buy this data wholesale and resell it to employers—pure profit.
Without registrants, entire police departments would have to solve actual crimes. Politicians would need new boogeymen. The surveillance state would lose its favorite scapegoat.
Imagine the chaos—and imagine how economically essential every registrant truly is. Without them, how would OffenderWatch pay its investors? How would fear merchants stay in business? The horror.
ADDED NOTES: the sarcasm is intended to add a little dark humor but the facts are there and real. If we dont laugh a little the clear spiral into madness would have us all forever in despair and tears.
Going by actual recidivism statistics, I would argue that over 95% of registrants are low risk. And that the registry is absolutely useless in protecting the public from the small handful that remains.
When I completed my counseling in 1999, the therapist sent a document to my probation officer that officially stated that I was an excellent participant in the group and should be considered LOW RISK to reoffend. I still have the letter. I got of probation in 2002. None of this stated when people see me on the FDLE sex offender website. I also never violated any of the terms of my probation or any laws or requirements since. I feel like I’m a bad guy forever where people are always encouraged to think the worst about me! Nothing I have done since to have a successful and happy life means anything in terms of regaining my standing as a citizen. I’m always on the outside looking in.
Of course, problems with poles like this is it doesn’t give anybody an alternative and it only gives one example in the attached article that somehow justifies the poll. There should be a follow-up question or something which says that level level low-level offender would be x y and z as opposed to a higher level with LMNOP so that people know and have a basis. You’re still going to get people who think that all people under that label are the same of course. But some people want to understand the nuance too.
New York needs to scrap it’s whole registry. Someone challenged the registry a long time ago and the judge ruled that the registry was arbitrary and capricious however, they still keep it up [moderator’s note: no such ruling found]. I know a guy who can’t get a job because he’s designated high risk and he hasn’t has so much never committed any offenses for over a decade or so. There are others who cannot be employed or even live in residential neighborhoods because people are always harassing them or trying to assault them. I know one person who has decided to go back to a vocation program and every 90 days he registers and like clockwork he gets harassed, threatened, or he loses contact with the people or students that are in his group because the program broadcast his name and picture every 90 days like he’s committing an offense and people are terrified because they see him as a person who keeps committing an offense and that’s not what the registry is all about. There needs to be a automatic coming off or lowering of levels, and the factor to get into court, although robust, needs to be a little more easier. I’ve read a court case about a judges who have ruled against a person on the registry because even though they may have not committed offense for 20 years, they failed to complete a program, or something of that factor [moderator’s note: For clarification, see People v Charles 2018 NY Slip Op 03864]. That is wholly unfair. Lower level people after a very short period should not even be on the list or the names being published, however, I see some legislation that wants everyone published irregardless of their status.
The registry is nothing but crap.
A simple Google search reveals;
It was likely Matter of Madison v Superintendent, Fishkill Correctional Facility (2017 NY Slip Op 27460). The court said DOCCS’s conclusion was “arbitrary and capricious” in applying SARA to a prisoner convicted of attempted burglary.
[moderated]
That’s quite a bit narrower than what was suggested previously. We may be reading more into this ruling than it actually contains.