Mix of emotion at hearing for sex offender bills
»Play Video
SALEM, Ore. – There was a mix of emotion Thursday as Oregon lawmakers heard testimony about a pair of bills that would overhaul how sex offenders register and are supervised.
The first proposal, House Bill 2552, concerns juvenile offenders. The bill would allow those who committed a sex crime before age 16 from having to report as a sex offender under certain circumstances.
The second bill, House Bill 2549, would mandate that all sex offenders be classified by their risk level to society. For instance, a Level 3 sex offender would be classified the most dangerous; Level 1 would the least likely to re-offend.
Currently, Oregon does not classify sex offenders; Washington does have a ranking system.
Surprising fallout of House Bill 2549? It would also provide relief to certain sex offenders. If passed, those convicted of serious crimes -- such as first-degree rape and sodomy -- can ask to be taken off the state registry within as few as five years after they're done with probation or parole.
Connie Hollon was behind the original law in 2006 that put a portion of Oregon’s sex offender registry online. She finds the proposal disappointing.
“It saddens me,” Hollon said. “This is a bill … by a few select proponents that have their own agenda.”
“This is also a crime that doesn’t walk away from the victim,” she added.
Others spoke in staunch support of the bills. Ken Nolley, president of Oregon Voices, said the current laws are actually creating an unjust culture.
“The very laws we’ve passed to protect our community is actually destroying families … in many, many cases,” Nolley said.
Both bills were heard by the House Committee on Judiciary. The judiciary committee did not hold a vote on either bill.
Related content:
For those  interested  in escaping the KATU spin zone and getting the full, unadulterated scoop concerning  HB 2549, might I suggest first viewing the actual text of the bill:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Text/HB2549/Introduced
Followed by a visit to the Oregon House Judiciary Committee's website, where an audio recording of the Feb. 28 hearing is available:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Committees/HJUD/2013-02-28-13-00/Agenda
âThis is also a crime that doesnât walk away from the victim,â she added.
Yet where in this bill is more help for victims? Where in this bill is more money allocated to victim prevention?
Let's discuss how any additional or less punishment of offenders helps victims at all. Where is the free top quality treatment for victims?Â
If everyone was really concerned about victims, then most of the conversation would be about helping current victims and preventing new ones. However, since this is not the case, then I have a hard time seeing that anyone discussing this bill gives a rats behind about victims. Let's see a bill that diverts the outrageous amounts of money being spent on ex offenders, the people who are least likely to offend, and focus it on victims, families, and prevention.Â
When you say you care about victims, then most of the words out of your mouth, and all of your actions should show you are victim-centric. When you spend all of your time, energy, and money on punishment, then it clearly shows victims are not on the top of your list.Â
When an ex offender gets an ankle bracelet, the victim doesn't start feeling better. When an ex offender gets a longer sentence, the victims do not magically move on with their lives. When the victim gets treatment based on the lowest bid because the housing of non-violent offenders costs $30k/year/inmate, the victim didn't win anything.Â
Stop pissing and moaning about ex offenders. Start demanding that victims get top billing. Demand that money be diverted to education and prevention and to support of families at risk. Let's do something that might actually lower the rate of abuse in our communities. Look a child in the face who is being emotionally abused and tell them they don't matter because we have to spend money on ex offenders to make ourselves feel better.
Well, I get called all sorts of names for just arguing this subject. Â Does the truth matter to the person calling names? Â No. Â It makes them think that the label has some sort of credibility because they can call a name. Â BUT nobody here can justify an unlimited public notification as a public safety tool EXCEPT that it makes them feel good.
See, when people don't like the truth they ALWAYS resort to violence and/or name calling. Â Freedom and justice is a complicated and difficult concept becasuse there is always pressure on society to do away with those concepts for expediency for some or another group of people. Â
The world has changed. Â And although NONE of you remember, there was a time, not so very long ago where governments the world over (the U.S. included) stripped legal protection from groups of people they could never understand. Â It brought about a world war where 100's of millions died. Â But from the ashes of that war there came a set of NEW laws which in a very large part was based upon the U.S. Constitution. Â That new set of laws doesn't allow for ANY groups of people to be selected to have their rights taken away. Â Â
Your registry is dangerous to be on. Â You can't get away from that, and most don't deny it. Â The registry doesn't protect the community. Â The registry is a response to a complicated question that government can't respond to in the proper way because it takes out the politics of it all. Â There is too much to be gained in politics by naming a group of people to be stripped of their legal protection.
But don't think any of you who advocate for ANY group of people to show up on a discrimination list without DUE PROCESS to be credible. Â
Will the list be repealed? Â No. Â It has SOME good intentions. Â Will people be able to vote on who goes on the list? Â NO. Â It will be controlled by a gate-keeper who wears long black robes and puts fear into people as a living.
Their names go by JUDGE. Â Â
@Rudy101 In today's world it is not the Judge, it is the prosecutor who has all the power and to have 95% of all criminal trials settled by a plea "Agreement" is wrong and it is wrong to be able to hike up the charges of an offense and go up until someone faces 25 years in prison to risk trial with a jury pool represented by a public educated by crime television and so biased they have decided the case just on the accusations alone. The whole system is just a rotted bowl of apples.
I know a friend who one stupid night out drinking tried to go pee in a bush and some lady called the police thinking he was a perve and now he's a registered sex offender. I can see stuff like that being taken off because it was obviously a dumb drunken mistake at deficating in public. However; molestation, rape, etc.... i'm sorry but i wanna know where you are so i can watch my family. While we're add it, i'd like murderers and people of violent crime posted out there too. Why not? Might put the shame and good sense into them which they obviously didn't have before.
@JohnPDXÂ I agree that dropping registration for the low level sex offender crimes should be done whereas the more extreme ones shouldn't. I have a friend who became a felon for making out with a girl who had been partying in a bar all night with some of his friends. He was 18 and he made out with her. He became a felon for that because she was 15. I know several other people who are classed as sex offenders because they they urinated in public or had girl friends in high school who were 15 and they were 18. Peeing in public should be charged as a public nuisance type of charge. Consensual sex when they are very close in age shouldn't be a crime.
@JohnPDX PdXd must be your wife. John - most of these crimes when you start to look into it are far different than you thought they were and shows how easy our brains are manipulated when watching television or going to a movie. We must always question and prove to ourselves if what we believe is from indoctrination of constant propaganda or based on empirical evidence...well, at least I take being a responsible citizen seriously. Most people are lambs and if you believe anything the main group of citizens believe you better roll up your sleeves and do so heavy duty research into the issue and look at it as a blank slate with zero emotions. You will be surprise at what you find. This is regardless of what the issue is about.
@mamabearroars I was going to try to be polite to you, but I'm sorry, the name don't fit the picture. So next time, shut up stupid cow.
@mamabearroars You should take your own advice instead of shooting from the hip thinking I have any ties to somebody else on her, ma'am. I'm a 30 year old HOMOSEXUAL, hence no wife. But if you consider your "deep seeing educated ways" of coming off to my post like the way you are then I suggest you take your own advice and do just that, look, research and thinking before you speak/type. I say good day to you ma'am.
@JohnPDX @mamabearroars Thank you John, and you are right.  I should take my own advice and take the emotion out of it. It isn't easy though. I do not listen to television for advice or information, but I do read many books and online internet news aggregates and I also know a person that is a gay man that has suffered terribly from these abusive laws. These laws affect many people in many ways. The media doesn't have a clue on the majority of people that suffer the most and for the longest and that to me is where the "victim" in these laws should be. No one wants a prepubescent child hurt, but teen sex happens and should not go on a registry.
@JohnPDX Hey I'm a 30 year old homosexual too, and nope, I got no wife, and I ain't gonna be no ones wife, but husby on the other hand....that might happen someday.
GENERAL MESSAGE to people on the Oregon Sex Offender Registry list (and their family and friends): Join me in the effort to REPEAL Oregon's Sex Offender Registration laws by emailing me at OregonActionCommittee@Gmail.Com.  We must find each other and work together to bring this important change to reality.  Also in the meantime, join me at my radio talk show at Activist Central where we occasionally talk about criminal justice issues at Www.BlogTalkRadio.Com/ActivistCentral on Tuesday evenings at 6pm Pacific (the switchboard number is listed at that website) hosted by Registered Sex Offender, Tom Madison of Oregon.
@Tom Madison Hey Tom, can you elaborate on just exactly what you're proposing? While a public mistake, or a consentual arrangement is one thing I think what everybody's freaking out over is that a serial rapist will come knocking down the door. Can you give more inforamtion to maybe help clear up the misunderstanding? Cause i'd like to know just what you're talking about straight from you.
JohnPDX - It is too early to discuss details of our repeal efforts. For now, you can say it is the early stages of development.
As to your statement "... what everybody's freaking out over is that a serial rapist will come knocking down the door." -- I can understand the fear/panic about what people 'think' they know about violent sex crimes (hey, it is what keeps TV news profitable! :)), the fact is that stranger on stranger sex crimes are rare such as stranger-child kidnap / rape / murder abductions or the sometimes grab-rape of a female jogger. These are certainly frightening cases but what isn't pointed out to the public is that they are far from the typical case of sex abuse, date rape, Romeo-Juliet sex, etc...
My position all along my 'coming out' is that sex offender registration laws are a form of secondary punishment of the sex crime perpetrator under the guise of civil regulatory law intended to enhance the public safety by giving notification (publicly accessible registry) to potential victims so they might avoid sex crime dangers in the future. The problem with this thinking is that the vast numbers of sex crimes are committed by people who are NOT on the sex offender registry. Pretty amazing isn't it?  Â
Here's another one: Over 90% of child sexual abuse cases are committed by people already known to the victim (step dads, babysitters, the minister, etc.). In other words, Oregonians have been hoodwinked by the tough-on-crime political blowhards in Salem to buy into this junk science based, unconstitutional, undemocratic sex offender witch-hunt law that misdirects parents to look to the SOR to locate dangerous sex offenders but fails miserably and ends up only shames former offenders and their family members.
Call into my radio talk show on Tuesday and engage me the discussion if you have time. Or write me at OregonActionCommittee@Gmail.com. Thank you.Â
-Tom Madison, Registered Sex Offender and host of Activist Central at BlogTalkRadio.Com
@pdxd I have read your posts and none of them presents you as someone that makes intelligent arguments. Strong opinions? Yes. Logical reasoning and persuasive arguments? 0%.
@mamabearroars If a sex offender is so mentally ill that he or she can't possibly help themselves from re-offending, then lock them up in a state mental ward. Some things are forgiveable. But a grown adult molesting children is UNFORGIVEABLE.
@Tom Madison, You're a sex offender, you belong on the list. Grow up and realize that your actions are going to haunt you, your life, and your legacy for however longer you live.
@pdxd This is a rare case as these are and the MAJORITY ON THE REGISTRY know the victim, consensual sex, or a "finger" was pointed at them and when the truth comes out you realize that what you heard as the crime through the prosecutor showed much less culpability. Now if someone does rape a person or threaten and injure a child they must be punished. For a decent, safe and liberal democratic society to be the most livable and give the most happiness to all you must have a balance in justice where the punishment fits the crime and where at the end of the rehabilitation period the person has the opportunity to have a new opportunity in life. We have a very corrupt justice system where torture and isolation are normal way of treating incarcerated citizens. WE also are building "Private" prisons and they are going to be on the stock exchange and our government guarantees a 90% fill rate! Outrageous! Slavery! If you are not worried about justice and balance in society and your children get caught up in this horrible system who will you want to help you? Moral societies take care of the weak, mentally ill, and forgive those that have done wrong at some point in time. Â
@pdxd  Good example - the NE Sandy fast food case of last summer. This guy was on the SOR list and he did re-offend. As I have always said, if a person commits a crime then they should be held accountable and in this case he is.  But that shouldn't mean that the vast numbers of people on the public sex offender registry should be held hostage in remaining on the list given the acts of a few.  The people who work in law enforcement have many tools available to them to track down and arrest suspect of all kinds of crimes.  They don't need a SOR list to find crime perpetrators.
 Join me in starting the process of REPEALING Oregon's Sex Offender Registration law.
-Tom Madison, Registered Sex Offender in Oregon and host of Activist Central talk radio at BlogTalkRadio.Com - Tuesdays at 6pm.Â
@Tom Madison So, let me make sure I understand this.....according to your logic, if someone is on the registry, they are less likely to re-offend? Sounds like a great case in favor of the registry. And let's not forget the sex-offender who locked the young boy in the bathroom at the fast food restaurant on NE Sandy and tried to violate against him, and pulled a knife on him? Oh yes, just do away with the lists since people on there don't tend to re-offend. <sarcasm with a smile>
@Tom MadisonÂ
Yes, the crimes are typically committed by someone you know (90% of the time for kids 12 and under, 80% of the time for 13+). Such as the neighbor who moves in that you talk to over the fence. Someone who you "know", but you wouldn't know they were a sex offender.
The "someone you know" could be someone who you are out on a first date with. Someone in your writing class. It isn't necessarily someone you know well enough to know their criminal history.
Yay! Sex offender convention at Tom's house!Â
In 1949 the FCC require that a "Fairness Doctrine" be followed for any media outlet to be able to have a license. The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine. Right after this requirement was removed the Rush Limbaugh show started on radio. Now it is a free-for-all on the television and radio stations and the naive public, which has become such a populous of boobs, they do not read, question anything they hear...Actually the American viewer basically turns on the television so they can be told "HOW TO THINK."  Where are we going from here?
Turn off the television, let your mind heal and read a book.
Some people wear "Victim-hood" as a badge of honor are shameless and ridiculous. Life is not easy and many of us have been put in horrible situations. If you survive those you pick up the pieces and brush yourself off and move on.  Learning to swim has its risks, para-sailing has its risks. Joining the military to fight in an illegal war you find out is vicious, cruel to many innocent people and you do things to these people that have never done anything to you can also scare a person. When we have something happen we should realize that we have the power to be a victim or not. If you were raped years ago you may be apprehensive when you are in a similar area or situation but your rational, thinking, higher brain makes you realize that you can let it go. Some victims have decided to cash in on "victim-hood." They become celebrities while their broad brush of emotionalized ranting creates fear, bias, raging and misplaced hate and puts good people at risk of being injured or murdered. Many people have not hurt or touched anyone and never would. The law does not care as you are still on the register, called a pervert, pedophile and predator by these uneducated blathering media news entertainers. Who is really the immoral ones?
@mamabearroars Is it blame the victim time? I didn't choose to be a victim. I don't go out and about and wear a giant sash that says "Look at me, I'm a victim" while I'm walking down the street. The only times I bring up my past, is when it's on topic, and pertinent, and talking about sex-offenders is on-topic, therefore, as a I victim, I will speak-up as a victim, I'm not trying to glorify my experience, in fact I wished it never happend, in fact, for years, realizing what happened, it made me want to die. So, now, you, nor any sex-offender gets to put me down for being a victim. All you're doing is encouraging those who have already offended once, and will likely re-offend if the circumstance allows. You're a sick human.
@pdxd Like I mentioned above, I believe your case will be better if you learn to be logical in your arguments. Actually, this time around, you almost sold me until the later part of your posting when you stated "all you're doing is encouraging those who have already offended once, and will likely re-offend if the circumstance allows." That was an assertion that was laden with fallacious reasoning. But, I won't break that down for you. It'll probably be a waste of effort anyway. Worse, you couldn't resist name-calling as you called the lady "a sick human." You see, when you learn better ways to argue, and base your case on facts - not opinions or emotions, you'll find that you won't have to resort to name-calling again. In fact name-calling exposes people's little minds.
News organizations like KATU use verbiage with frequently colored, biased wording to bend an agenda instead of discussing, educating and eliciting a public discussion on the topic of sex crimes with words like:Â "Pervert, Predator, and Pedophile."Â
The fact is that "Stranger Danger" is EXTREMELY RARE! It matches up across the whole United States along with the risk of your child being struck by lightening. Compare: 1 in a million stranger danger risk to 1 in 1.2 million being struck by lightening. This is not about protecting your child or any child. Child welfare is not of importance to these Corporate Media hacks. If it were they would be saying that the risk of stranger danger is a none issue and the fear of stranger danger promoted my the media is far more harmful and risky for the mental and physical well-being of a child that the danger of being kidnapped, murdered and raped. Many children cannot even enjoy their surroundings without the constant fear of the implanted fear constantly in their minds.  Â
I wouldn't trust a stranger with my child, and I'd be telling my kids that if anyone (Teacher Mary, Bishop John, uncle Bob, Grammy Ginny)Â touches their privates, or touches them with their privates, that they need to let me know ASAP.
@pdxd You talk as though your total understanding of this issue comes from crime shows like the Nancy Grace show, To Catch a Predator, and America's Most Wanted and then of course the good 'ol evening news.  Get some books and read them and get up-to-date real true information from experts in their fields. Education is the best cure for any kind of fear. If you would like some book titles I would be glad to post them.
@mamabearroars In fact, wouldn't surprise at all if you were married to a sex offender, or harboring one.
@mamabearroars Have you read any of my other posts? I fully support not forcing an 18 year old who had consensual sex with a 15 year old to file as a sex offender! However, if you take a 50 year old who has sex with a 15 year old, the perv needs to be tried and if guilty, put on the offender list. Teens are sexual creatures, yes, if they consent to sex with eachother, that's one thing, but all you seem to be doing is defending the evil vile old men theat prey on young victims.
@pdxd Most times the perps are people they know....well. Gross.
@pdxd You are only using "Personal Experience" as a basis for a broad and expansive system. Our personal experience is not the correct and fair way for the basic rights to be extended to all citizens. There is far more to the sex crimes, humans sexuality, human psychology and most adults are not attracted to children sexually. Pedophilia is a very rare mental condition and they need to seek mental health experts for help. With the system as it is some do not because of the fear of being turned in even though they may never have acted on their desires. The history of sex laws in interesting to read about through out time and as in changes from one set of rules to another. Teenager are sexual and have had sex for thousands of years. Religious teachings may refer to the desires as "Evil" or wrong but they are very natural and that is why it is more of a public health issue than a crime. It is very said to call a teenager that has had consensual sex with another teen a predator, pervert, or pedophile. Some of these young people have had their futures destroyed because a girlfriend was jealous and pointed a finger and with a public that is so uninformed but EXCESSIVELY emotionalized and believing that this level of emotion is justification and a foundation for judging right and wrong bolsters a prosecutors powers to demand a plea agreement instead of a trial (95% of all criminal cases are plead out) The prison industry is the new Jim Crow laws. You probably do not even know what the old Jim Crow laws referred to.
@mamabearroars Oh, no, my education in this comes from MY very PERSONAL experience as a victim, so, you can please STFU, I'll do what I think is best, and sadly for your children, you'll toss them at the predators without a second thought because Uncle Jimmy would never harm the innocent kids.
It is the utter LOVE of the list. Â It is so EVERYONE can point fingers and define themselves, not upon their own accomplishments and value, but to compare the list against themselves. Â At least you are not one of THEM, eh? Â There is not a person here cares a whit of what the list accomplishes. Â How it destroys individuals, how it forces sexual abuse into the closet, how it makes it more likely that a person with nothing to lose will take everything. Â The list is about standing upon others so we can seem so much better than THOSE, because without the list, well, we just might have to justify ourselves by our own actions instead of a comprative analysis. Â
I've been a victim of non-violent offenses, but they stuck with me none-the-less. I do believe that violent offenders must remain on the list. In the case of a situation involving consenting teens that happen to have that 3 year age-gap, I think there needs to be leniency. With no legal consent allowable for those under age 12 (I was under 8 as a victim). I think there does need to be levels of severity, depending on severity, and the ages of the victim/offender. Should an 18 year old who started dating a 15 year old at age 17, really wear a sex-offender label for having consensual sex with the 15 year old after turning 18? I don't think so. That's about the only situation I can think of worth removing the sex-offender label.
@pdxd You don't even understand sex crimes, sex offenders or human behavior.  ANY crime with a victim who was under 8 is INHERENTLY a violent crime.  Are you a second class citizen, pdxd?  Did that person ruin your life?  Did you know that EVERY PERSON that you have ever known has gone through trauma.  There are no exceptions.  Some handle it better than others.  I am pretty sure that with your false attitude about even the crime YOU were a victim of, it didn't make you a 2nd class citizen.  How could you let someone do that to you?  You are way too strong and decent individual to allow THAT to happen. Â
That being said, as you are an individual with a halo and have no excuse for not having a halo, let someone else determine whether a person is dangerous or not. Â Someone that knows better than you or a legislature and let that person determine what needs to be done so that person isn't dangerous. Â But don't think you have the answers. Â It would be like me going into your job and telling you how to do it without any knowledge, education and experience. Â What do you think would happen? Â I would screw it up. Â
The sex offender registry is made by a bunch of amateurs who don't understand what they are doing and the implications of what they are doing. Â What happens? Â It would be like me trying to build something as complex as a rocket ship. Â Just because there is an explosion doesn't mean it is working.
@Rudy101 Who the F are you to tell me anything about the attitude I carry with regards to what happened to me? I spent a solid 10 years blaming myself for what someone else did to me, when I went to a church leader to address it, it was swept under the rug, 12 years later, I still struggle with the fact that because of what someone else did, that I at times don't feel worthy of being happy, and it stems back to manipulative actions by someone else. The sex offender list may not be perfect, but requiring offenders to report to the list with their current contact info in my mind is no different than following up with a P/O. They did the crime, they have to live with the consequence.
Then quite your belly-aching, and file suit with the Supreme Court, otherwise shut your pie-hole you pedo.
@pdxd I understand, I have no right to put ANY attutudes upon you.  What gives you the right to do the same for others?  Admit you don't understand the registry, what it is for, why it is the way it is, and how it is used.  The State doesn't have the authority to extend sentences.  It just doesn't exist. Â
How do you think I can get away with what I am doing? Â Why can I get on a public forum and proclaim the registry illegal and not register and not worry about the police? Because the registry IS illegal. Â That is why. Â
The solution is simple. Â It is as old as the Constitution itself. Â It is called, DUE PROCESS. Â It is not radical. Â What it does is ensures that FAIRNESS is the HIGHEST ideal of a justice system. Â The registry is not fair. Â That is clear. Â Most don't even understand the philosophy behind the registry. Â Most don't care. Â BUT the whole thing is a legal issue that stems from the FACT that the registry doesn't require dangerous people to be on, it is passed and applied ex-post facto and the result is a loss of safety and/or security.
As important as you are, I am also... Nothing can take that away. Â I have proven that. Â
How do you get off the list for not voting Obama two times?
@Bert Suicide. Help yourself to it.
Difficult choices...I do not think Just because one was 16 they should be off the list;' it should depend on what they DID. Â If a person is on that list because their girlfriend was 14 and they were 16 I agree - I do not find this a Crime. Â But, if at 12 and 13 and 14 a young man or a girl is having sex with kids 10 or under....these are people who are very likely to re-offend.
I do believe in the ratings - a person who fools around with a cousin isn't a huge risk to the neighborhood. Â Men or Women who have preyed on kids in the past - yes. Â Likely to re-offend. Â The statistics should help predict who is at the highest risk of offending and these are the people we need to track and track carefully!
@BCH mom Doesn't it occur to you that what they did was litigated in a courtroom and that that can't be litigated a second time?  You have ONLY one option.  That is to determine a person a CONTINUING DANGER.  I know it sounds easy to just use statistics and opinions about re-offense.  BUT to give an idea on what I am talking about,  a person in the criminal justice system is afforded, BEFORE a sentence is passed, allocution (speaking on their own behalf).
Do you really think that RIGHT disappears when society makes a registry whose outcome is the total and ever-lasting hate of the community? Complete social isolation? Â The severely reduced ability to have the basics of security of a home, employment and to even to eat decently? Â
You have some idea that you can come to some sort of compromise on who goes on the list and who isn't. Â What I am saying, you get NO OPINION about whether a person poses a danger.
There are 3 branches of government. Â Each one has their own responsibilities and duties. Â None of the branches can do the other's job. Â The registry laws were passed as CIVIL. Â They have no civil outcome. They have no civil recourses. For a small percentage they COULD have civil outcomes but in order to find out who that would apply to requires a COURTROOM and REQUIRES the participation of the offender!
You don't agree? Â TOO BAD! Â You don't get the registry and I won't go on it! Â This is NOT a debate!
@BCH mom People who believe in the democratic value of equality under the law do not also believe in "rating" people in terms of their future dangerousness. This political labeling system is a very dangerous road to go down because it soon expands to include other "undesirable" people.  We must not let our Oregon elected public "do-gooders" sell us on the idea that public safety is more important than protecting our democratic society and the constitution that we all depend on.
@tom madison
Are you on the list? I thought I saw you on that show. Anyhow, I don't believe the rating should be based on what the crystal balls predict someone will do again, but rather be based on the offense they were found guilty of. Based on ages, and if it was violent or not. Non-violent consensual sex between teens, not reportable. Other offenses, reportable and classified based on the offense and ages.
I don't believe it's up to the victim. And I'd never expect a victim to forgive their abuser. But I think that unless the sex is consensual, and it's simply a matter of two horny teens that get it on, and one is just slightly too much older than the other, that if there was clearly a victim who was abused, I think the abuser ought to be there on the list. For me, it boils down to consensual or non-consensual, if there's consent, skip the list, if there's no consent, you made the list.
@pdxd Then leave them or take them off depending upon the feeling of the victim? I have yet to meet any Christian with that kind of will power and conviction.
@Tom Madison
I absolutely believe that sex-offenders should be on a registry based on the original crimes. If you can take the innocence away from the victim, then I really don't think you ought to deserve to go on living your life normally afterwards, the victim will never be made 100% whole after your actions.
pdxd -- You said: â⦠I don't believe the rating should be based on what the crystal balls predict someone will do again, but rather be based on the offense they were found guilty of.â
Then what you are saying then is that regardless of what judicial punishment / accountability was given to the perpetrator you agree that the added legislative punishment scheme (the Sex Offender Registry) should come into play and again punish the perpetrator for the original crime once more.Is this essentially what you are telling us?And if so, are you calling that system just?
@pdxd I wouldn't debate me either.....Â