Reformation and Review of Post Sentencing Laws
Sexually Offensive Acts: Who Defines Them?
Posted on May 9, 2016 by director in Boundaries, Constitutionality
So now I am really confused: the purpose of the Registry is to protect the children; or is the purpose to make a mockery of American values by listing all people who have poor sexual desires onto a registry? If it is for the purpose of “protecting the children from harm” then put only the adults who have harmed a child onto the Registry. If the Registry’s definition is to create a list of all people who are sexually deviant, then put that into the “Mission Statement” for the Registry so everyone understands that not just child molesters are on the registry but everyone and their cousin who display sexually motivated non-prudence towards another person could be on this Registry.
The Registry, in its current state, should be called the Sexually Offensive Acts Registry in order to cover the actual scope of people that are really on the Registry. Most people do not read the specific charges that put a person on the Registry. They merely see the name and the picture. Who cares, right? The government built this thing; so it must be right!
When a person kills a child by way of an automobile accident, is that person on a registry of any kind? When a person makes a sexual pass at a co-worker and receives a sexual harassment charge, is that person on the sex-offense Registry? When a politician makes a rude comment about how women are not fit for certain business positions, is he considered a sex-offender? When a woman leaves her child in a car in the middle of the Summer, why is she not on a registry that can broadcast her name and address everywhere? When a man beats his child to the point where that child has scars and bruises, is he put on a child abuse registry—of some type?
When you create a listing system that gives out addresses and in some cases, very personal information about another person’s life, you are defying the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution. [cite] If you are too lazy or do not already know this, then please look it up. In short, the US Government can not give out any address or personal information about an individual. This is part of our protection and privacy rights—-not a privilege, as some would posit.
So why are there not MORE lists for those who harm a child. And why are mostly people who have been convicted of having sex or having the intention of having sex or even having had the motivation to have the intention to have sex; or did not even have sex but have perform some public display of sexual demonstration, none of any that relate to acts against a child, on this SORNA Registry?
There are 9.2 percent or less, on the American sex-offender registry, whom have committed any crime that has had a direct effect on children or a child. [cite 1a] The other 92 percent or so are people who the Courts of the American Justice Department, and States, have decided to make a spectacle of. That is about all the S.O. Registry does: make a spectacular display of this person, to the public so that person can be ridiculed and despot for the rest of their life. If this sounds extraordinary well then ask anyone who is on this Registry about how they are treated by neighbors. Or how they do not have the type of income they had in the past. It is a burden to the point of no return and is not necessary as well as aggravating as hell and becomes a form of punishment, that which is also Un-Constitutional. [cite]
Some will say this is just fine and that is how the public wants these vile and disgusting people to live their life: scared and punitively. That might be fine if ALL people on the Registry were strictly child molesters or child abusers. Even then every case must be weighed out individually before any Court or Judge can make that decision, against the U.S. Constitution. (Some could argue the definition of ‘harm to a child’ or definition of a ‘sex crime.’) Even though the model of the registry defines the “concepts” of its purpose rather well, it misses many troubling points when it describes the purpose of the Registry as being legally binding and Constitutionally correct. In general it defines itself as taking steps to protect our children. That is fine. But maybe putting more money into education and mental health studies would be a better way to protect our children.
A registry—particularly the current one—only can give a peace of mind to the resident living close to another person who is on the Registry. In all reality, a more misguided peace of mind if you look at the “feel good” aspect versus the “real good” aspect of what the Registry does for our communities.
So now we are faced at either defining the SORNA one-hundred percent or do we will-nilly the definition and let the public “mystically” define it any way they feel fit. Here in lies the problem of why the Registry is so in need of rehabilitation, or total abolishment. We have Legislators whom have decided it would be a good move to make this sex offender register ‘thing’ a great soap box to stand on for their campaigns. If John Walsh would not have sought out to make tons of money broadcasting “To Catch A Predator” on television, then most politicians would never had thought a sex offender registry was even worth bringing up as a pulpit bootstrap. I only mention this because it is a solid fact and people need to be aware of how Mr. Walsh took total advantage of raking in cash to spite his dead son who was not killed by anyone who could have been stopped, even if that killer’s address was posted or flyers were distributed about his residency. [cite] It was money that decided to move forward and create this non-regulated, disorientating campaign to loathe all who have had sex in an outrageous manner… and even some who have not have any kind of sex but may have displayed their genitals in a email or picture.
Now we are faced with fixing what is broken. The biggest hurdle is the public. The American public is so uninformed about what the Registry really is and this is not a good starting factor to build on. A Supreme Court decision needs to be made and if the Registry is not approached on a National review then the SORNA will not go away and that will keep States to allow the registries at the State level. Efforts to abolish the Registry could be worthless if the registries do not get filtered and looked at on a one by one basis by defining the crimes of which are to be qualified as registry related crimes. Once we whittle down the number of crimes and convictions that are ‘worthy’ of “registering” only then can we see the worthlessness or the Registry. At least the worthlessness of the current catch-all registry we are using now.
◾“Child Maltreatment 2012,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau.