OR: Lawmakers debate proposal to add sex traffickers to public registry

Admin

Should more sex offenders be listed on Oregon’s public sex offender registry? State lawmakers discussed the topic on Thursday as they considered a bill to add convicted sex traffickers to the state’s public website. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

3 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So placing people who looked at inappropriate photos or peed near a park is somehow ‘Useful’, but sex traffickers, people that are part of organized crime are NOT even on the registry? This is the definition of Insanity. I agree that it’s good of ACLU to push back on adding anymore people to the registry, but this strategy may not work. Sex traffickers are the worst of the worst as far as I am concerned, how easy is it going to be to convince lawmakers to not add them to the registry?

What DOES make sense is for ACLU and our organization to argue to remove Non-contact offenders from the registry to start with, and shorten the registration time for contact offenses. First time contact offenders could stay on for, let’s say 5 years, while repeat can stay on for 10 years. I mean it’s either we reform the registry or abolish it completely which would be ideal, but a bit unrealistic right now. We have not ‘chipped-away’ at it enough to dismantle it. You can’t topple something of this magnitude that quickly. If you ‘ease’ the public and lawmakers into the removal of offenders based on empirical evidence, then you can eventually dismantle the whole scheme. That just my thinking based on my understanding of the psychology of people. Toppling the registry is a dream and just the right thing to do, but it’s highly unlikely at the moment. Chipping away at it every year is very realistic. This is what’s going on now. The residency restrictions are being eliminated. Ex post facto is being challenged and removed. Next the non contact first time offenders should be removed so that law enforcement can align resources to people with a higher priority. Eventually you can cut down on registration time for the remaining levels of offenders and do away with the registry or most of it. Correct me if I’m wrong…

0
Reply
View Replies (1)

Taken from ‘Life’s Too Short’. Point being, lists are very important

Liam Neeson (pulls out list): Here’s some of the stuff I’d like to work on: improv, standup comedy, funny monologues, crazy characters, sketches, slapstick, anecdotes, parody. Yeah?

Ricky Gervais: Yep.

Liam Neeson: You noticed this list, huh? I’m always making lists. In fact, that’s probably why Steven Spielberg cast me as Oskar Schindler in Schindler’s List. I said, ‘Steven, I make lists all the time’. And he said, ‘That’s exactly what I’m looking for.’

0
Reply