Persons required to register. Or former sex offenders. The latter has been used by Miami ACLU and is statistically accurate without sweeping things under the rug.

“Sex offenders” is a misnomer referring more accurately to those at risk of committing a sex offense. The sex offender registry (and even background checks) do a poor job of capturing that population, when you consider the statistics regarding (a) who is committing sex offenses, (b) re-offense rates of those convicted.

A Peron Who Has Been Directly Impacted By The Criminal Justice System Basically A Directly Impacted Individual: (a person who committed a crime; a formerly incarcerated or an incarcerated person; a person with a felony conviction.)

I just found it in the talking points from Dr. Emily Horowitz’s FAC membership call on Feb. 7, 2019: “a person who has a prior sex offense conviction”.

A special thank you to anyone else who researched this and sent me the info.

I am going to send the “Hill” link for “Language Matters for Justice Reform” to as many media outlets as I can. I did not find in the article, though, the proper way to refer to someone who has committed a sexual offense. A month or two ago, someone in a post at the FAC Website gave the proper terminology to use, which I have forgotten. Can anyone tell me what it is? I would like to add this information when I send the link. Thank you.

Person First Language instead of Convict, Criminal, Felon, Inmate, Offender, Prisoner.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/451099-language-matters-for-justice-reform

By: DeAnna Hoskins is president and CEO of Just Leadership USA, a national, member-driven advocacy organization that seeks to cut the U.S. correctional population in half by 2030. She spent time in the State of Ohio’s correctional system and previously served as a senior advisor at the Department of Justice and as the director of reentry for Hamilton, Ohio Board of County Commissioners.

Well remember, all other offenders are people but sex offenders are sub-human according to lawmakers and some radical neighbors and law enforcement. Have you ever heard Mike Chitwood on tv? Two kids can spray paint some graffti on a fence and likes his key word “Sum bags”. What is the purpose of deeming people? I never judged anyone when I worked in law enforcement, I just did my job and treated everyone fairly and let the courts do the rest.

Why can all ex felons be called and Ex-offender and not need an additional label. Everyone from law enforcement to jobs and apartment leasers can find out your past with the click of a button.

Calling us offenders mean we are out committing more crimes. Although a murderer did kill someone, is he or she still killing people? You cannot take back your offense but if we cannot move forward, what is the reward other than being in fear we will be re-arrested because we worse a blue short on green shirt day? Took me a year to get them to stop trying to arrest me because they had they kept changing the color of my vehicle in my registration. Can you imagine someone going to jail for having a red car and they have mauve listed an now you are a very bad man.

Second-chances advocates are comfortable excluding former sex offenders, because they realize that their audience is unfamiliar with, or dismissive of, sex offender recidivism rates and assume that “they” can’t be “cured” and are therefore fundamentally different from other offenders. They are not at all embarrassed to proclaim, “I’m all for second chances, but I didn’t mean THEM!”

It’s a public education problem. It is taking a long time for he public to be aware of, statistically, who is doing the sex offending and who is not. When more people understand this, “second chances” will be more inclusive.

What’s holding back reform is that the public assumes that your family member, and others similarly situated, is a “sex offender,” which statistically is no longer correct. The entire debate is weakened severely by use of the wrong terminology by journalists, elected officials, and the public.