Rational Effective Active Legislaton
Legislation is expected to be based on sound reasoning and evidence. It is presumed that lawmakers are sent to the State Houses and Congress to enact laws that address real issues and work towards effective laws and regulations that provide for the common good, are proportional, and are fiscally responsible
In the case of sex offender legislation, the legislature has shown that it is incapable of understanding the problem or crafting legislation that works towards making communities safer, protecting children, or is fiscally responsible.
In an effort to assist the legislature in composing rational law and regulation that will address the issue and provide for greater community safety and protect children, we propose an outline of legislation that will meet the requirements of providing for the common good, be based on sound reasoning and empirical evidence, and be fiscally responsible.
REAL Law - An Outline Proposal
If something is not working, the sane individual will stop doing it, even if they have no better solution.
To continue only wastes energy and clouds the vision to a better solution.
Sane, rational people look for a solution when what they are doing does not work.
Courageous legislators oppose legislation steam rollered through an assembly because it is 'popular' and 'safe'.
Legislators and Executives are elected to govern. That is a terrible responsibility. To govern does not always mean to yield to the will of the vocal minority and apathetic majority. It means to have the courage to enact legislation that is good for the whole society and considers the rights of the individual over the will of the whole.
We do not support or condone the actions of Garrido, Sowell, or any others of the icons paraded to support the registry. Neither do we support or condone the legislation that was complicit in those heinous and tragic crimes committed by those of the Garrido and Sowell ilk.
The registry, Megans' Law, Jessica's Law, SORNA, all have failed and led to a terrible tragedy. The sex offender hysteria has frozen police in feeding frenzy to arrest and convict the first target they found. It led to a child suffering eighteen years of captivity and abuse and she will possibly suffer that trauma for the rest of her life. It so overwhelmed police and enforcement agencies that they missed the multiple clues to Garrido and Sowell. Now we must ask how many other truly dangerous actors are among us because the registry is swollen with hundreds of thousands who present no risk to the community or children.
The registry did not protect her Jaycee or the probably more than eleven women murdered by Sowell.
Those charged with enforcing the registry spend most of their time watching people who do not need watching and become inured to the seriousness of some few under their supervision who do need serious and close supervision.
Case in point. In Georgia there are over 17,000 listed on the registry. Every County Sheriff is charged with monitoring those in their county. The number of people listed on the Georgia Sex Offender Registry as Violent and/or Predator is 140. Of these only 96 are released to the community. That means that fewer than 1% (0.79%)are a danger to society. The Review Board established by what is claimed to be the toughest sex offender laws in America, the Georgia statutes, claims that 65% of the people on the Georgia Sexually Violent Offender Registry pose no significant risk to society. (Yes, that is what the Georgia Registry is named, regardless of what underlying charge ended the 17,707 people on it.)
Yet, police must monitor every one of them. Is it any surprise, that those charged with monitoring Phillip Garrido did not pay close attention to him or give due credit to calls by citizens about him. They had to watch another 99 for every Phillip Garrido and constantly received calls from citizens, with an unrealistic understanding of who is on the registry, about every address they could find on the public registries.
The registry, in the uncontrollable monster it has become, has diluted any positive effect it might have had, though that effect is doubtful. Registration does not work, education and treatment do work. John Walsh and Oprah are putting your children at risk with their hyperbole. John Walsh recently stated publicly that he has never seen a treatment program that works. Obviously he has never looked at the hundreds of thousands on the registry who have been through treatment and never re-offended. Oprah and John constantly team up to spread the hyperbole that sex offender equates to violent predator and refuse repeated requests to invite offenders who have no victim, no victim contact, or no sexual component to their offense on their program to tell the other, larger, side of the story. They are joined in this lie by Dr. Phil and many others who simply refuse to admit the truth, their registry does nothing to protect anyone and destroys many valuable lives.
We do not want to ever hear of another Adam Walsh or Joshua Wetterling. We never want another Phillip Garrido loose to destroy another victim. We want rational legislation that will have the effect of prevention while respecting the rights of the individual. We propose legislation that follows the outline listed here.
Rational - Effective - Active - Law
- All current registry laws must be repealed.
- All persons currently on the registry and under residency restriction must be phased off of the registry over the three years subsequent to the enactment of the law.
- Each individual case must be evaluated within the three year phasing period by mental health professionals certified in the evaluation of persons convicted of a sex offense and a risk assessment be provided.
- Any person so evaluated and determined not to be a risk must be removed from the registry upon completion of such assessment.
- A Person convicted of a sex offense, having completed any sentence ordered by the court is to be placed on supervision for a period of three years.
- During this three year supervision, qualified mental health professionals, certified in sex offender evaluation and treatment, must assess the risk factor for that individual.
- Individuals assessed as low risk must be removed from supervision at the conclusion of the three year period.
- Individuals determined to be a risk will be continued for a subsequent three year evaluation and treatment period and this cycle continued until such person is evaluated as not presenting a risk to the community.
- Any individual determined to be a continued risk has a right of appeal to the court to present such evidence challenging the assessment.
- All information retained by the registering entity, upon completion of a three year assessment period, and removed from the registry, will be expunged.
- The underlying records of offense remain subject to the laws and regulations governing such records.
- Persons convicted under consent laws, i.e. 'statutory rape', may be excluded from registry or evaluation if;
- The act resulting in the conviction is demonstrated to have been consensual;
- The parties involved in the act resulting in conviction are at least 13 years of age and demonstrate the ability to make an informed decision with respect to the act;
- There had been no demand that a party that was party to the act cease and desist from contact with the other party by a person having guardianship of a minor involved in the act.
- In no case shall any registry be made public;
- Except in the case that a person required to be in a three year evaluation period, absconds from or fails to cooperate with the conditions set forth by treatment or supervising entities.
- In all cases categorized as a sex offense;
- All details and particulars must be made available to the accused or counsel for the accused.
- The prosecuting and defending entities must cooperate in all phases of the adjudication of the issue to determine the validity of the accusation, appropriateness of the offense charged, and all mitigating factors. The prosecuting entity must present all exculpatory evidence to the accused or counsel representing the accused.
- The court must consider, affirmatively, the appropriateness of treatment over incarceration as a resolution to the process.
- Any person convicted of an offense resulting in serious or permanent hysical harm or death as a result of a sex offense to a victim is exempted rom this act and subject to a minimum of twenty years incarceration as determined by the courts determining such appropriate sentence.
- The court must consider the offenses in the light of the offense being a mental health issue.