WA News Story: Understanding the Sex Offender Registry
Here’s a decent news story out of Washington State.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
34 thoughts on “WA News Story: Understanding the Sex Offender Registry”
Comment Policy
- PLEASE READ: Comments not adhering to this policy will be removed.
- Be patient. All comments are moderated before they are published. This takes time.
- Stay on topic. Comments and links should be relevant to this post.
- *NEW* CLICK HERE if you have an off-topic comment or link.
- Be respectful. Do not attack, abuse, or threaten. This includes cussing/yelling (ALL CAPS).
- Cite. If requested, cite any bold or novel claims of fact or statistics, or your comment may be moderated.
- *NEW* Be brief. If you have a comment of over 2,000 characters, please e-mail it to us for consideration as a member submission.
- Reminder: Opinions and statements in comments are neither endorsed nor verified by FAC.
- Moderation does not equal censorship. See this post for more information
ooops!!! You are absolutely right! I forgot to use People-First language.
Great Catch! I’ll work on being more aware of how I speak.
“Former sex offenders” was the term employed by Jeanne Baker in her televised debate with Ron Book.
It is by far the best terminology to use— it’s statistically correct, easy for the public to understand, and not to verbose— and I’m going to start using it i letters like this (if my letters are anywhere near as good).
Not registered person. Not registered citizen. Former sex offender. Keep it clear, folks!
(“Registered citizen” maybe ok to apply to oneself, though, in communicating with someone who’s already engaged in the issue. I neglected to read further down to the reply to the letter).
I agree, “former sex offender” is a great description.
Was is Janice Bellucci or someone else who once asked an audience if they had ever stolen something when they were a kid? Most in the audeience raised their hands. She then proceeded to shame them by calling them thieves. Then she helped them to understand how inaccurate it is to call someone a thief years and years later.
There were so many inaccuracies in that 5 minute piece it would take a 10 minute video to cover and debunk them all from experts (law enforcement officers who have never read a single study) to claiming level 3 offenders are the most likely to re-offend. While I appreciate there was a few quips of reason from the one gentleman on there, these people are contributing to the inaccuracies that abound.
Finally, after all that, they could of closed reminding everyone that using the registry for retribution or vigilantism of any kind is against the law.