Human Rights Watch Report:
"No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the United States."

Apparently Family Watchdog and the Human Rights Watch have met to discuss the claims made by FW against the HRW report. In essence, they agree on one point, that they both support preventing sexual violence, and that is where consensus ends. Their "Statement of Cooperation" is on the HRW site dated 10-3-2007, there has been no collaboration between these organizations since that date;nothing.

In addition, FW announces the most insane program I have ever heard of, they propose, anyone -including RSOs- may submit CERTIFIED COURT and OTHER DOCUMENTS realted to the RSOs' crime to FAMILY WATCHDOG, so they may make them available to the public. But, read carefully, FW would then be a Central Repository of criminal records, stored in Indiana.

Then if someone wants to assess the risk of a RSO, they would have to -fly, drive, take a train, etc.- to Indiana where the records are stored, and by some magical means, read the documents and be able to determine the risk the RSO presents to the community. FW will not be assessing RSOs.

Any reasonable person can see the falacy of such a risk determination, those documents would be at the point of the crime and will not reflect what the RSO is like in today's light. FW, like so many politicians, are stuck in history refusing to recognize the RSOs' accomplishments, changes and system reforms since the crime. FW proposes such a system because it fosters a need for their cottage industry.

Further, FW made claims -unsupported by evidence- of the HRW's report. And, FW promised a full report by 9-17-07, none has ever been published. Now FW expects to be entrusted with documents when there are no laws protecting those documents or governing Family Watchdog's use of them. I would never recommend such a system in the hands of an uncontrolled and unregulated private party.

Note: Look closely at the documents FW will accept, then look closer at the documents FW will reject. FW will reject anything not on a public registry. None of what they will accept is on any public registry. Should someone want to assess the risk of a RSO and not live in Indiana, will FW then charge a fee to copy the records and mail them? Another cottage industry, and hopefully not a source for the newspapers.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

FamilyWatchdog's Position Statement


FamilyWatchdog.us's Position

Our position statement

We hold firmly to the following beliefs.


--There are convicted sex offenders whose "crimes" should not be crimes.

--There are registered offenders who should not have to register.

--There are registered sex offenders who should not be on a public registry.

--There are registered sex offenders in our communities that will reoffend, and Americans have a right to know who among us has the potential to hurt us and those we love.

--There are registered sex offenders who are so dangerous they should not be allowed to live in a civilized society.

--It is the responsibility of our elected representatives, that govern our states and nation, and not FamilyWatchdog.us, to determine the best system to protect the communities they represent.

--Concentrating critical safety information in the hands of a few government employees is a turn in the wrong direction.

--Americans need to know who presents dangers to those they love and care for.

--Community members should use this information responsibly.

--States should give more information so that those who will come in contact with registered offenders living in the community can make their own informed risk assessment.

--As Oprah said when she featured FamilyWatchdog.us, now that you know, you need to act like you know. You no longer have to live in fear.

--FamilyWatchdog.us is committed to providing free, unfettered access to timely and relevant family safety information.

The Following by eAdvocate:

What FW lists above are sound bites all true to some degree, but said only with former sex offenders in mind. Missing from their response is recognition that other types of offenders, most with higher recidivism rates, are far more likely to be dangerous to folks in the community.

FW claims they wish to provide access to relevant safety information. However, absent from their message is any indication of lobbying lawmakers to expand to other types of offenders. Could it be that those types will not cause the public to support such legislation?

In all of their sound bites there is not one mention of children just the community in general. Why?

As to states providing more information about former sex offenders, that is useless to determine whether a person presents a risk in the community today. All the information states have is about a person, is from when they committed the crime, and that is not indicative of the person today.

More information perpetuates history and ignores the effects of prisons, jails, therapy and maturity of the offender. Geting to know the offender -in today's light- and getting to know what strides the offender has made since the crime, is far more relevant to determining what risk a person represents TODAY!

As to knowledge of dangerous former sex offenders in society, why stop with sex offenders? FW does not address such issues.

Today registries have presented communites with information of where former sex offenders live, and additional information, the public has not shown they can be responsible to handle that information.

The public has used that information to isolate and banish offenders under the guise of protecting children, and refuses to recognize that the newer laws actually makes some communities far more dangerous. ex: residency laws caused the death of a child in Georgia, and in Iowa and many other states has caused sex offenders to go underground and not register. Does this make communities safer?

Finally, some in the public have used registries to murder former offenders, and persons accused of a crime, as well as a few mistaken as sex offenders. Further, that does not include those that have occurred this year which are in our blog murders of RSOs and persons accused of sex offenses.

The hysteria caused by politicians and other speakers as well as the media has masked the truth about former sex offenders and what they are experiencing. The Human Rights Watch Report has broken ground in exposing what has been occurring which lawmakers have closed their eyes to.

Mapping sites such as FW have actually ignored the few minimum laws that have been enacted to protect former offenders. Mapping sites fail to display the PUBLIC WARNING MESSAGES (now required by the Adam Walsh Act) which Congress and state legislatures have enacted already!

eAdvocate:
Posted by at 10:21 PM
Labels:

1 comments:

Anonymous said...

as has been proven at least four times community members have not used the information responsibly


Community members should use this information responsibly.

September 21, 2007

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)