Saturday, March 24, 2012

Radio-Role-Play - Live & Recorded Episodes:

Radio-Role-Play - Live & Recorded Episodes:

Sex Offender Issues: Free Range Kids: Why Does an Old-Fashioned Childho...

Sex Offender Issues: Free Range Kids: Why Does an Old-Fashioned Childho...: Original Article Speaker : Lenore Skenazy Host : Amy Draves Duration : 01:14:12 Date recorded : 20 March 2012 The media labeled Lenor...

I Love a Sex Offender: I am collateral damage of the sex offender registr...

I Love a Sex Offender: I am collateral damage of the sex offender registr...: So, I've finally made my TV debut. If you haven't seen it yet, it's worth the four minutes: http://www.wktv.com/news/local/Woman-engaged-to-...

Sad, Sad! H 437 (2012) Protection of Minors -Approved by Governor

THIS IS A SAD DAY!!!
Horrible legislation for Florida. 
It is so important we all go as public as we can to let the Citizens
know the truth. Our legislators continue to use sex offences to 
build fear and votes. 
 ___________
 
TRACKED BILLS
H 437 (2012) Protection of Minors
 -Approved by Governor 
http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2012/437 

Missouri Legislation - no ex post facto law; exception of Sex Offenders

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 83

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE S KELLEY (126) (Sponsor), SCHAD, HAEFNER, BRATTIN, GATSCHENBERGER, HOUGHTON, GUERNSEY, FUNDERBURK, COX, FISHER, LAIR, McNARY, STREAM, THOMSON, DAY, HOSKINS, ENTLICHER, WHITE, DAVIS, WETER, KEENEY, ROWLAND, JONES (89), FRANZ, DIEHL, HUMMEL, HARRIS, PACE, WEBB, FALLERT, CASEY, NICHOLS, BROWN (85), LONG, REDMON, PARKINSON, FREDERICK, JOHNSON, RICHARDSON, HAMPTON, BERNSKOETTER, CONWAY (14), REIBOLDT, SOLON, WIELAND, GOSEN, LANT, PIERSON, BURLISON, BAHR, BLACK, FITZWATER, SMITH (150), SCHOELLER, BROWN (116), HIGDON, WRIGHT, NANCE, RIDDLE, ELMER, LASATER, LARGENT, MOLENDORP, McCREERY, BROWN (50), McGHEE, McCANN BEATTY, McNEIL, LAMPE, STILL, ZERR, BERRY, JONES (63), MAY, HUBBARD, COLONA, QUINN, SHIVELY, HODGES, SMITH (71), LOEHNER, GRISAMORE, DIECKHAUS, SILVEY, KLIPPENSTEIN, FLANIGAN, NOLTE, ASBURY, SCHATZ, SCHIEFFER, HUGHES, ANDERS, ELLINGER, CROSS, SATER, WALLINGFORD, McGEOGHEGAN, SCHIEBER, LEACH, McCAHERTY, SOMMER, ALLEN, LAUER, COOKSON, NASHEED, HOLSMAN, TORPEY, RIZZO, MONTECILLO, FRAKER, MORGAN, BRANDOM AND TILLEY (Co-sponsors) .

6036L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk



JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri an amendment repealing section 13 of article I of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section in lieu thereof relating to laws retrospective in operation.

Be it resolved by the House of Representative s, the Senate concurring therein:

            That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2012, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

            Section A. Section 13, article I, Constitution of Missouri, is repealed and one new section adopted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 13, to read as follows:

            Section 13. That no ex post facto law, nor law impairing the obligation of contracts, or retrospective in its operation, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities, can be enacted; however, a law may be retrospective in its operation with respect to a new obligation, duty, or disability imposed upon sex offenders.

If you are in Missouri you better start writing these reps and tell them just how you feel about it.

Schad, Rodney, Chair
Marshall, Nick, Vice Chair
Cierpiot, Mike
Colona, Mike
Conway, Kathie
Ellington, Brandon
Fuhr, Gary
Higdon, Galen
Hinson, Dave
Lasater, Brent
McGeoghegan, Eileen
Pace, Sharon
Phillips, Don
Reiboldt, Bill
Walton Gray, Rochelle

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Radio-Role-Play - Live & Recorded Episodes:

Radio-Role-Play - Live & Recorded Episodes:

Episode for March 19th 2012: Probation and Parole: Should All Convicted Sex Offenders (CSOs) Be On Permanent Weekly Supervision?

Episode for Monday, March 19th 2012
at 8:05pm EDT / 5:05pm PDT
TalkShoe.Com Internet Radio - Show id:  113956:  
Episode for March 19th 2012:  Probation and Parole: Should All Convicted Sex Offenders (CSOs) Be On Permanent Weekly Supervision?

The focus of training and practice this week, similar to last week, is not just communicating your basic memorized talking points but dealing with this week's three common rhetorical fallacies as part of our interview skills practice.  Last week, the Blathers character used a list of 14 'dirty rotten tricks' often used by some in the media. 

First:  This week's substantive questions to ponder:
1.    How can we trust that CSOs will act properly without being on supervision by a parole officer?
2.    Will life-long parole reduce the level of future sex crimes committed by CSOs?
3.    Should CSOs be rounded up and held during certain children related holidays?
4.    Should CSOs be required by law to wear bright orange jumpsuits when ever out in public away from their homes?
5.    Should parole officers be issued stun-guns and firearms to protect themselves when dealing with convicted sex offenders because CSOs are violent and dangerous.
6.    Should CSOs be required to call-in to their life-long parole officer whenever they leave home for any reason?
7.    Because all CSOs are the same, should GPS technology be employed to help reduce the sexual violence of Convicted Sex Offenders and then have these criminals pay for the GPS?
8.    Should CSOs be required to live in special "sex offender housing" where the building's bright orange color helps parole officers keep sex crimes down as low as possible?
 The above questions will be interspersed with issues pertaining to the many sex offender laws that infect public safety policies in the United States.   It is expected that you will be responsible for the interweaving of your own activist points of view into the wider range of broad-based issues that may be discussed at many levels considering today's potentially complex politics. 

Also, be sure to understand who Blathers' will deploy various fallacies during the program:

What is a Fallacy?  Here are some notes that I gleaned off the website  http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ and from various blog discussion groups.:

First, we must know the definition of an argument and then from there look into the question of argumentative fallacies.  What is an argument?  An argument is a series of statements that consist of the presentation of certain facts and some reasoning based on those facts to arrive at a conclusion (can be true or false.) 

What is a fallacy (in the rhetorical sense)?

·       A fallacy is the presentation of at least one false fact in an argument (statement) where the conclusion is based on that fact.
·       A fallacy is the presentation of at least one flawed logical step in an argument (statement) regardless of whether  the named facts are all true or not.


Fallacies can have the appearance of being initially persuasive but have a false premise, or false reasoning or a false conclusion based upon the first two parts of an argument. 

Here are 3 rhetorical fallacies that Blathers will use against you this next Monday night.  Be on your guard.
1.    Ad Hominem (abusive) - Relies on the following types premises (often implicit):
a.     Any claim that person P makes about subject X is (probably) false because some feature of person P.
b.    Any reasoning given by person P gives about subject X is (probably) bad because of some feature of person P.
c.     The ad hominem is a fallacy whenever these implicit premises are false or dubious.
2.    Guilt by association
a.     Person P says something about subject X.
b.    Person P is associated with people who say Z, which contradicts subject X.
c.     Therefore, person P probably believes in Z instead of X and thus guilty.
d.    Keep in mind that vague language can be used to snare you by the "associated with" statement.
3.    Appeal to hypocrisy
a.     Person P gives argument A for conclusion C.
b.    Person P does not believe the conclusion C, or acts in ways that are inconsistent with conclusion C.
c.     Therefore , argument A is a bad argument and should be rejected.
d.    This tactic s also opens the door for ad hominem attacks against Person P.
e.     Example:  My support of convicted sex offenders getting a fresh start when released from prison has nothing to do with my never hiring them or renting space to them (I have personal reasons for my personal practices that are outside of the general proposition.)
f.      NOTE:  For practical purposes, charges of hypocrisy can be deadly, and prevent people from listening to your message or taking you seriously. But it’s still a fallacy to conclude that your arguments are bad or your conclusions are false simply because you’re a hypocrite.
 = = = = = = = = =
Also be especially aware of Blathers' usual and routine dirty rotten tricks:
 1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.
2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Going  after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. The use of ad hominem attacks are not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. This form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.
3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you're using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It's often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.
4. Rewriting History. This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palin's mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they'll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.
5. Scapegoating / Othering. This works best when people feel insecure or scared. It's technically a form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category. The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, you can then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b) subvert responsibility for any harm that may befall them as a result.
6. Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to Violence With Weakness. This is more of what I'd call a "meta-frame" (a deeply held belief) than a media technique, but it is manifested in the ways news is reported constantly. For example, terms like "show of strength" are often used to describe acts of repression, such as those by the Iranian regime against the protesters in the summer of 2009. There are several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the potential to make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force - it can turn wars into sporting events. Secondly, especially in the context of American politics, displays of violence - whether manifested in war or debates about the Second Amendment - are seen as noble and (in an especially surreal irony) moral. Violence become synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.
7. Bullying. This is a favorite technique of several Fox commentators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is then able to interpret that as a "win."
8. Confusion. As with the preceding technique, this one works best on an audience that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user's claims veracity in the viewer's mind.
9. Populism. This is especially popular in election years. The speakers identifies themselves as one of "the people" and the target of their ire as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always "elitist" or a "bureaucrat" or a "government insider" or some other category that is not the people. The idea is to make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often goes hand in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism bias when used by the right is that accused "elitists" are almost always liberals - a category of political actors who, by definition, advocate for non-elite groups.
10. Invoking the Christian God. This is similar to othering and populism. With morality politics, the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and "real Americans" (those are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges them as not. Basically, God loves Fox and Republicans and America. And hates taxes and anyone who doesn't love those other three things. Because the speaker has been benedicted by God to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral. It's a cheap and easy technique used by all totalitarian entities from states to cults.
11. Saturation. There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being ubiquitous and being consistent. The message must be repeated cover and over, it must be everywhere and it must be shared across commentators: e.g. "Saddam has WMD." Veracity and hard data have no relationship to the efficacy of saturation. There is a psychological effect of being exposed to the same message over and over, regardless of whether it's true or if it even makes sense, e.g., "Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States." If something is said enough times, by enough people, many will come to accept it as truth. Another example is Fox's own slogan of "Fair and Balanced."
12. Disparaging Education. There is an emerging and disturbing lack of reverence for education and intellectualism in many mainstream media discourses. In fact, in some circles (e.g. Fox), higher education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is perceived by these folks as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some commentators, evidence of intellectual prowess is treated snidely and as anti-American. Education and other evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is why they are so viscerally demeaned.
13. Guilt by Association. This is a favorite of Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart, both of whom have used it to decimate the careers and lives of many good people. Here's how it works: if your cousin's college roommate's uncle's ex-wife attended a dinner party back in 1984 with Gorbachev's niece's ex-boyfriend's sister, then you, by extension are a communist set on destroying America. Period.
14. Diversion. This is where, when on the ropes, the media commentator suddenly takes the debate in a weird but predictable direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where most Fox anchors start comparing the opponent to Saul Alinsky or invoking ACORN or Media Matters, in a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association. Or they'll talk about wanting to focus on "moving forward," as though by analyzing the current state of things or God forbid, how we got to this state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any attempt to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand will likely be called deflection, an ironic use of the technique of projection/flipping.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Program schedule for "Radio-Role-Play"
Www.Talkshoe.Com -- Show ID:  113956

Phone call in: 
724-444-7444   -- Show ID: 113956
or
Log in at
Www.TalkShoe.Com -- Show ID:  113956

- 7:45pm Eastern:  Pre-show green room - Learn your talking points (not recorded)
- 8:05pm Eastern:  Radio-Role-Play (recorded)
- Post-show green room - constructive criticism and praise (recorded)

RIP Alex at RSOL

Of topic but very interesting story

A lady in a faded gingham dress and her husband, dressed in a homespun
threadbare suit, stepped off the train in Boston, and walked timidly
without an appointment into the Harvard University President's outer
office.

The secretary could tell in a moment that such backwoods, country
hicks had no business at Harvard & probably didn't even deserve to be
in Cambridge.

"We'd like to see the president," the man said softly.

"He'll be busy all day," the secretary snapped.

"We'll wait," the lady replied.

For hours the secretary ignored them, hoping that the couple would
finally become discouraged and go away.

They didn't, and the secretary grew frustrated and finally decided to
disturb the president, even though it was a chore she always
regretted.

"Maybe if you see them for a few minutes, they'll leave," she said to him!

He sighed in exasperation and nodded. Someone of his importance
obviously didn't have the time to spend with them, and he detested
gingham dresses and homespun suits cluttering up his outer office.

The president, stern faced and with dignity, strutted toward the couple.

The lady told him, "We had a son who attended Harvard for one year. He
loved Harvard. He was happy here. But about a year ago, he was
accidentally killed. My husband and I would like to erect a memorial
to him, somewhere on campus."

The president wasn't touched. He was shocked. "Madam," he said,
gruffly, "we can't put up a statue for every person who attended
Harvard and died. If we did, this place would look like a cemetery."

"Oh, no," the lady explained quickly. "We don't want to erect a
statue. We thought we would like to give a building to Harvard."

The president rolled his eyes. He glanced at the gingham dress and
homespun suit, then exclaimed, "A building! Do you have any earthly
idea how much a building costs? We have over seven and a half million
dollars in the physical buildings here at Harvard."

For a moment the lady was silent. The president was pleased. Maybe he
could get rid of them now.

The lady turned to her husband and said quietly, "Is that all it cost
to start a university? Why don't we just start our own? " Her husband
nodded. The president's face wilted in confusion and bewilderment.

Mr. and Mrs. Leland Stanford got up and walked away, traveling to Palo
Alto, California where they established the university that bears
their name, Stanford University, a memorial to a son that Harvard no
longer cared about.

You can easily judge the character of others by how they treat those
who they think can do nothing for them.

--- A TRUE STORY By Malcolm Forbes

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Tomorrow Night on Radio-Role-Play: The Danger Next Door - Can We Trust "CSOs" In Our Neighborhoods? Tune in on Mondays at 8:05pm

Radio-Role-Play - Live & Recorded Episodes: Tomorrow Night on Radio-Role-Play: The Danger Next Door - Can We Trust "CSOs" In Our Neighborhoods? Tune in on Mondays at 8:05pm

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/place-moratorium-states-placing-residency-restrictions-registered-sex-offenders-whove-finished-their/BRhtZvpb


Place a moratorium on states from placing residency restrictions on registered sex offenders who've finished their time.

The State of Kansas, in 2005, considered allowing their municipalities to create residency restrictions for registered sex offenders. In weighing their decision they considered what the experts on a national level have stated about such restrictions - that they are counterproductive to public safety - and they instead placed a moratorium preventing any municipality from creating such restrictions.
It is in the best interests of our country to follow this lead and follow the advice of the Human Rights Watch in their 146-page report titled "US: Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good" and create a national moratorium to prevent states from creating such residency restrictions.
 
Created: Feb 21, 2012

Searching for Interview Subjects - Harmful impact of sex offender registration and notification laws on children

Forwarding: Nicole Pittman of Human Rights Watch has put out a plea for interview subjects; information follows; contact info is at the end. 
_________________________

Searching for Interview Subjects …

I am conducting a nationwide investigation for Human Rights Watch on the harmful impact of sex offender registration and notification laws on children. This project will focus on documenting and advocating against the human rights violations that stem from subjecting children to such laws. Three general concerns are:
First, the laws can be overbroad in scope and overlong in duration, requiring child offenders to register who pose no safety risk.
Second, given the easy public access to online sex offender registries, registrants may be subjected to public humiliation, harassment, and violence. In certain cultural or religious communities, the registration requirements can harm a young person’s ability to practice their religion or enjoy their cultural rights.
Third, residency restrictions can have the effect of banishing registrants from entire geographical areas, forcing them to live far from their homes and families. The risk of public humiliation, family separation, and de facto community banishment can be particularly harmful for youth, including by harming the mental health and developmental progress of youth. The subjects I am looking to interview include but are not limited to persons with information relevant to the concerns outlined above who meet the following characteristics and categories;
1.                  Children (under the age of 18) who have been adjudicated delinquent or convicted as an adult of a sex offense that either;
a.       Subjects (or subjected them) to sex offender registration and notification laws. This can include residency restrictions, zoning restrictions, housing restrictions, etc.
b.       Were subjected to registration or notification laws but successfully petitioned to get off the registry
c.       Were subject to registration and notification laws but aged out of the juvenile justice system and no longer are required to register.
2.                  Family Members affected by a child relative subject to registration and notification. Family members can also include siblings, cousins, grandparents, aunts/uncles, coaches, clergy, foster parents, teacher, principals, or anyone in a guardian/mentor-like position in the child’s life that was indirectly affected by the child’s registration status.
3.                  Attorneys representing children in underlying criminal proceedings or adjudications.
4.                  Government Officials A Government official in this case can be a probation officer, a judge, prosecutor, mandatory sex offender treatment provider, sex offender registration group treatment provider, police officer, interstate compact on juvenile official, etc.
Interviews with a wide variety of people from the above categories is essential to the success of this investigation and publication of findings. Every interviewee will have the right to refuse participation and / or to provide information confidentially.
Please contact me by email or phone with the name and contact information of the potential interviewees. If the subject is homeless or does not have access to email or phone, please contact me so we can discuss alternate ways to reach out to them. My contact information is listed below;

NICOLE PITTMAN, ESQ.
Soros Senior Justice Advocacy Fellow | Human Rights Watch
1441 Sansom Street #729 | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
Tel: 267.765.6766 | Fax: 267.765.6981 | Email: pittman@hrw.org

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Lawmakers focus on social, religious issues

Lawmakers focus on social, religious issues: HEADLINES Despite oft-repeated promises to focus on job growth, Georgia lawmakers spent much of their effort over the past week on issues important to religious and social conservatives. House...

GA - Teen lied about rape, charges have been dropped against seven Northeast High School students

Over 5 Million Americans are Sick and Tired of this Witch Hunt


Over 5 Million Americans are Sick and Tired of this Witch Hunt

by RSODL

Why is RSODL (Rehabilitated Sex Offenders Defense League) growing so fast? Simple. Over 5 million people in the USA alone are absolutely fed up with this Witch Hunt.
Who are they?
An average of three family members per rehabilitated offender + 3 close friends per rehabilitated offender + 750 000 registered ex offenders = 5,250,000 people who support the RSODL cause in the US alone!

Bill would stiffen sex offender penalties

Bill would stiffen sex offender penalties

Bill would bar sex offenders from military

Bill would bar sex offenders from military

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Reform Sex Offender Laws in Wisconsin: Internet stings: Does the fantasy defense hold wat...

Reform Sex Offender Laws in Wisconsin: Internet stings: Does the fantasy defense hold wat...: http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2012/03/internet-stings-does-fantasy-defense.html Monday, March 5, 2012 Internet s...

What happens when you discover sex offenders living in your Association?

What happens when you discover sex offenders living in your Association?

Petition to sign: Place a moratorium on states from placing residency restrictions on registered sex offenders who've.


wwws.whitehouse.gov
The State of Kansas, in 2005, considered allowing their municipalities to create residency restrictions for registered sex offenders. In weighing their decision they considered what the experts on a national level have stated about such restrictions - that they are counterproductive to public safety - and they instead placed a moratorium preventing any municipality from creating such restrictions.

It is in the best interests of our country to follow this lead and follow the advice of the Human Rights Watch in their 146-page report titled "US: Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good" and create a national moratorium to prevent states from creating such residency restrictions.

Created:
Feb 21, 2012

Click here or above: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/place-moratorium-states-placing-residency-restrictions-registered-sex-offenders-whove-finished-their/BRhtZvpb

One To See Change Past Posts

One to See Change Blog List

"When an American says that he loves his country, he means not only that he loves the New England hills, the prairies glistening in the sun, the wide and rising plains, the great mountains, and the sea. He means that he loves an inner air, an inner light in which freedom lives and in which a man can draw the breath of self-respect."
~Adlia Stevenson U.S. Vice President (1893–1897) and Congressman (1879–1881)

On a Personal Note

Thanks for the opportunity to express my thoughts regarding the issue of citizens’ rights, particularly addressing certain sex offenders’ crimes that do not fit the devastating, inequitable and endless punishment given.


As you know, many young men and women lives across the nation are being destroyed by incarceration, life-time registry and restrictive laws that do more harm than good. For those individuals, there is no second chance.

Below is a personal letter to President Obama:
* * * *
“Dear President Obama,

I truly agree with your sentiments that individuals, such as ex-felons, should be able to receive a second chance at life. Since we all know that one can veer off that path of life and travel along rough, rocky terrain, sometimes running off and ending up in some ditch. We all have made our fill of mistakes and sometimes those held a costly consequence that changed life forever. So we lived through it, trying harder to make things right with family, friends and those around us, but what about those who aren’t able to make things right even if they tried…because they’re labeled as too dirty, a leper, a person who is rejected from society and home.


But what if they’re a seventeen year old and had sex with a fifteen year old, consensual at that? Or they’re a teen that had gotten so enraged after a breakup that he sent out naked pictures of his girlfriend on his cell phone or email? Or an individual urinates where someone just happens to see them?


All are wrong and a travesty but do they deserve the life of no second chance with a registry that ends all. They are labeled, no jobs, no where to live…they have been deemed a menace to society, a plague. These certain circumstances, and many other situations similar to these, I believe still deserve a second change.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


After my son’s early release and two years of prison, I thought I had handled that fact graciously knowing after serving his time he would be able to get that fresh start, that second chance. He was an exemplary inmate, GED, college courses and vocational classes. Little did I know that a second chance on the outside was the farthest from the truth? He now struggles and lives in a trailer park sharing a trailer with another and surrounded by others in the same rocking boat, one to float endlessly in shark infested waters. I see him little because of probation requirements (he couldn’t live with us because we were 800 feet near a school). My family is afraid of what would happen to them if he lived with them…vigilantism. My son has no other place to stay since others condemn him of his crime that is screamed from the highest rooftop. Sex offender, sex offender!

Not all sex offenders are pedophiles or predators but some are simply young kids that make one stupid and rash decision that eventually changes everything, and they have no idea what they’ve done until their life is never their own. Exactly, where is that second chance for those sex-offenders who are lumped together with pedophiles and predators? Now, it makes me sick to think of my son’s future and many like him that are on the registry and many with no second chance…ever. I am asking you as a mother and as another concerned citizen of the United States that these laws are looked at again and taken into serious consideration in what they are doing to the Constitution of the United States, not for sex offenders in general but the future rights of every citizen, before anymore are put into effect. They unjustly strip an offender of their rights and place them in a guillotine that can be easily set off by anyone and at anytime. Where is the second chance for ex-sex offenders in the present, pending and future laws?”
* * * *
What truly saddens me is the weakness and deterioration of what the sex offense issue is doing to our once, great nation. Across Europe, others are seeing the injustice and disregard of rights, but we ignore this problem and it makes me wonder where humanity is heading….

We have become a hysterical society in which our latest witch-hunt is a sex offender--no matter his/her crime.

Below is a email sent from a foreign advocate to a father of a sex offender:
* * * *
“The tragic story of your son's death is just so sad that it's difficult to explain how. It was very hard to read your letters. It seems almost unbelievable that this can take place in a democracy! From our point of view, there is no justice in this. Not in any way: not for you, your son, the former girl friend – or even the state.

It is an abusive legal system. It seems barbaric. And we are so very sorry that this takes place. That's why it's so important for us to try to neutralize the debate with this…, hopefully making some changes. ….. to show the every day life of the sex offenders, trying to show how they keep on being punished, even after served prison time…..But we will for sure tell the story of the injustice that your son has been exposed to.”
* * * *
I appreciate everyone's commitment and backing to protect everyone's civil rights, plainly as noted in the Constitution of the United States and is presupposed, giving ALL men are “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.”